Jonathan Zittrain a �crit:

> I'd been thinking of "interim" and "initial" as interchangeable before this

Well, they definitely aren�t the same thing. The interim board is
the unelected one, which, according to its bylaws and the tentative
acceptance of them by the NTIA (as a result specifically of the
demands of the BWG and ORSC for a membership, precisely so that the
Board could not initiate policy without a mandate from the
community), may not create policy.

> Given the aggressive timetable established between the USG and NSI for
> running the testbed on multiple registrar registrations, and the
> expectation in that agreement that ICANN would establish accreditation
> guidelines, it doesn't seem off base to publish draft guidelines without a
> DNSO yet in place, no?  

But it has turned out to be off-base. Those guidelines don't have
the approval of the community. And they go far beyond guidelines for
a test; they establish policy for the future, widesweeping policy on
such things as domain name registration, which is not only not
within the province of the interim board, but not even within the
province of ICANN, being instead the work of the DNSO, as the bylaws
say.

ICANN exists now because bylaws establishing it were tentatively
accepted. If the first thing ICANN does is violate those bylaws, 
what legitimacy can it have?

> Or is this an argument for the speedier recognition
> of a DNSO to keep pace with these developments? 

Evidently. First, the creation of the ICANN membership. Then the
consolidation of the SOs. Then, the beginning of policy-making. As
is natural. As the bylaws stipulate. As the law of the State of
California demands. The first act of a membership organization is to
assemble the members and elect a board of directors, without which
it has no legal authority to manage its own affairs or make any
policy affecting the membership or third parties. Period.

Reply via email to