At 11:05 AM 6/18/99 +0100, Ivan Pope wrote:
>Kerry,
>> "When we are asked direct questions we answer them." - E
>> Dyson.
>I love that too. So open.
Of course she doesn't say *when*.
Six days and counting, and no response, despite have sent this 3 times:
>From the minutes of the closed board meeeting in Berlin, May 27, 1999:
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/berlinminutes.html
>
>FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.35), that the Board requests that the
>Constituency for gTLD registries agree, for so long as Network Solutions is the only
>participant in such Constituency, to select only one individual (rather than three) to
>represent that Constituency on the provisional Names Council, and the Board states
>that if such Constituency does not agree to make only one such selection, the Board
>will amend the Bylaws to effectuate such goal.
>
>From the ICANN bylaws:
>
>>Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES
>>
>>(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own criteria for
>>participation, except that no individual or entity shall be excluded from
>participation in a
>>Constituency merely because of participation in another Constituency, and
>constituencies
>>shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and
>>consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board shall recognize a
>>Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in (b) below) by a
>majority vote,
>>whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to exist for purposes of these Bylaws.
>
>If the gTLD constituency is (in theory) allowed to self organize, I simply
>do not understand why ICANN can dictate who is or who is not a member.
>
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:42:47 -0400
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [bwg-n-friends] NSI allocates seats to IDNO and TLD Ass'n constituencies
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > 11 June 1999
> >
> > Internet Corporation for
> > Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> > Board of Directors
> > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> > Marina del Rey CA 90292
> >
> > CC: Michael Roberts
> > Interim President and CEO
> >
> > Pursuant to Art VI-B, Sec. 2(a) of the Bylaws for Internet Corporation for
> > Assigned Names and Numbers, Network Solutions as member of the gTLD
> > constituency hereby submits the following three individuals as members of
> > the Names Council:
> >
> > Representative
> > Donald N. Telage
> > Senior VP Network Solutions
> > 505 Huntmar Drive
> > Herndon VA 20170 USA
> > Tel: +1 703.742.4707
> > Fax: +1 703.742.3386
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Representative
> > Joop Teernstra
> > Cyberspace Association
> > 38 Sharon Road,
> > Browns Bay Auckland,
> > 1301 New Zealand
> > Tel: +64 9 4795552
> > Fax: +64 9 4795552
> > mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Representative
> > Richard J. Sexton
> > Top Level Domain Association
> > Maitland House
> > Bannockburn ON K0K 1Y0
> > Canada Tel: +1 (613) 473-1719
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Sec 2(a) explicitly allows Network Solutions, as member of the gTLD
> > Registry constituency, to specify three Names Council seats. Until such
> > time as additional top level domains are created and additional gTLD
> > Registries come into existence, the gTLD constituency will use two of the
> > three seats to provide an interim opportunity for individual domain name
> > holders and prospective registries to make their views known.
> > Following its closed meeting in Berlin, the ICANN Board issued resolutions
> > that included a request that the gTLD Registry Constituency voluntarily
> > relinquish its right under the ByLaws to select three representatives to
> > the Names Council of the DNSO, coupled with a statement that the Board
> > would amend its ByLaws to eliminate such representation if this action
> > were not taken "voluntarily".
> >
> > Network Solutions, the current sole constituent of the gTLD Registry
> > constituency, is mindful of concerns about any one company having more
> > than one representative on the Names Council. (Indeed, the current Bylaws
> > already prohibit more than one employee, officer or director of any
> > company from serving on the Names Council -- a requirement that appears,
> > by the way, to have been violated when Theresa Swinehart of MCI Worldcom
> > was elected by the Commercial and Business constituencies after Susan
> > Anthony of MCI Worldcom had already been elected by the IP constituency).
> >
> > The Names Council should act merely to facilitate the development of
> > consensus in the General Assembly and, as such, should not need to have a
> > "balance" of any particular number of seats for any particular faction.
> > (We have seen some statements by members of the provisional Names Council
> > that give us concerns about whether it will act in this fashion, but we
> > remain hopeful that the Names Council will not become a "top down"
> > decision-making body.) Nevertheless, the allocation of Names Council seats
> > among various initial constituencies was the subject of a consensus in
> > Singapore (as ICANN President Mike Roberts himself noted in Berlin). A
> > consensus reached in the DNSO should not be disregarded or overturned by
> > the ICANN Board, especially in a closed process and without the benefit of
> > careful reconsideration in the DNSO process itself.
> >
> > Another consensus reached at the DNSO meeting in Singapore was that all
> > stakeholders interested in the domain name system should have an
> > opportunity to participate in the DNSO and to select representatives to
> > the Names Council. It was for this reason that the ByLaws reflected an
> > opportunity for additional constituencies to apply for recognition. If the
> > central goal of the Names Council will be credibly to declare the
> > existence of a consensus in the General Assembly, it must have members
> > representing all the important stakeholder voices.
> >
> > It is surprising and disappointing, in this context, that the ICANN Board
> > would ignore the application of an individual domain name holder
> > constituency to be added to the DNSO. Regardless of the role played by
> > individuals in electing at large ICANN Board members at some future time,
> > it is vital for the voice of individual domain name holders (a large
> > percentage of the customers of gTLD registries) to be heard. It is also
> > important for prospective registries of new TLDs to be heard, and we
> > understand that the TLDA has applied for recognition as a constituency of
> > prospective registries.
> >
> > Accordingly, Network Solutions, acting for now as the gTLD Registry
> > constituency, in addition to naming myself as a Names Council
> > representative, declines to reliquish the Names Council seats allocated to
> > this constituency in the ByLaws. Until such time as additional top level
> > domains are created and additional gTLD Registries come into existence, or
> > the two additional constituencies in question are recognized as entitled
> > to select Names Council members directly (if that occurs earlier), the
> > gTLD constituency will use two of the three seats to provide an interim
> > opportunity for individual domain name holders and prospective registries
> > to make their views known. One seat will be allocated by the gTLD
> > constituency to an individual recommended by the Cyberspace Association,
> > an open group representing individuals who hold domain names. (Joop
> > Teernstra has been selected by that group, in an open voting process.)
> > Another seat will be allocated to an individual recommended by the TLD
> > Association, a group of prospective registries. (Richard J. Sexton has
> > been selected.)
> >
> > Both allocations will be on a "no strings" basis -- so that these
> > individuals can represent points of view otherwise unrepresented in Names
> > Council deliberations and without any obligation to reflect the views of
> > Network Solutions. But we should note that we believe these selections
> > serve the interests of the gTLD constituency, the DNSO and ICANN as a
> > whole. The voice of individual registrants must be heard in the policy
> > making process, not just in the selection of ICANN board members. The root
> > should be opened expeditiously -- and prospective registries must be
> > allowed to give their views regarding the orderly process under which this
> > can be achieved.
> >
> > We take this action in part because the Names Council as now
> > constituted is not adequately balanced and open to all viewpoints. We
> > supported the Paris draft, which suggested mechanisms that would help to
> > assure that any DNSO recommendations reflect a true consensus among
> > impacted stakeholders (such as a requirement that any one individual or
> > organization may join only one constituency, a requirement for some
> > minimum percentage of the General Assembly membership to join a
> > constituency in order to elect a Names Council member, and assured
> > reflection in Names Council proceedings of the voices of those who might
> > be called upon to implement any suggested policies). The ICANN Board
> > should seriously consider how it can avoid the creation of a
> > gerrymandered, captured DNSO -- and the importance of deferring any policy
> > decisions until the Board receives consensus recommendations from an open
> > and vigorous DNSO process.
> >
> > The Board's actions in Berlin -- threatening to amend a previously reached
> > consensus unilaterally, denying recognition to important groups of
> > stakeholders, and encouragement of policy decisions by an only partially
> > formed and apparently skewed DNSO structure -- were all steps in the wrong
> > direction. We call upon the Board to renew its commitment to inclusive,
> > open, bottom up processes. The resolution of the issues relating to gTLD
> > Registry constituency representation outlined above in that spirit. An
> > amendment to the Board's bylaws, as threatened in its most recent
> > resolution, would constitute a violation of ICANN's MOU with the U.S.
> > Government and a violation of the letter and spirit of the White Paper.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Donald N. Telage
> > Senior Vice President
> > On behalf of the gTLD Constituency.
> >
>>
>>>
>>> Mr. Donald Telage
>>> Network Solutions, Inc.
>>>
>>> Dear Don,
>>>
>>> Your message of today, copied in part below, is not responsive to the May 27
>>> resolution of the ICANN Board with respect to participation of the gTLD
>>> constituency in the provisional DNSO Names Council.
>>>
>>> In order to participate in the Names Council, Network Solutions must name a
>>> single representative as directed by the May 27th resolution.
>>>
>>> The Board appreciates your concern for representation of a full range of
>>> interests in the work of the DNSO. The Board has considered and discussed
>>> this objective both at its Singapore and at its Berlin meetings and in the
>>> public fora associated with those meetings. It took particular note of the
>>> needs of individual domain name holders for representation in its At Large
>>> and Supporting Organization constituencies and indicated in its actions in
>>> Berlin that it will incorporate the views of these constituencies in its
>>> further actions in forming these constituencies and their representation
>>> structures.
>>>
>>> However, it is not the role of the gTLD constituency, or of Network
>>> Solutions, to deal with these issues. There are appropriate public
>>> consensus mechanisms provided in the ICANN Bylaws and in our noticed actions
>>> in this area for accomplishing that objective.
>>>
>>> I look forward to hearing from you at an early date that you have
>>> reconsidered your actions presented to us today and are prepared to
>>> participate in the provisional Names Council in the manner adopted
>>> by the Board.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Michael M. Roberts
>>> Interim President and Chief Executive Officer
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
