> your mind is a scary thing.
It's open, if that's what you mean.
> there has never been anything stopping you or
> any proto-group you form from making suggestions to anyone, including the
> ICANN Board, anytime you want to.
You still don't get the point.
Your design for SO's -- the one you told me last year when Jon Postel
introduced us, the design that was "immutable" and which you said could
not be changed because of its massive "buy-in" from unnamed parties --
That design is one in which the SO's hold the key to policy. They were
the sole and exclusive vehicles for the formulation of policy.
The BWG and others worked hard to soften that, and we did achieve that to
a very small part, over your objections -- hence the revised form of 2(e)
and the existance of (f) and (g).
We've been working to make the SO's merely advisory -- yet until your
interpretation of this morning -- the SO's were mandatory conduits for the
generation DNS, Address, and protocol parameter policies.
Your interpretation changes all of that. Now the sole power of the SO's
is to appoint board members. The board no longer has to listen to what
the SO's say at all.
You've essentially removed section 2(e) and (f) from having any meaning
whatsoever.
I congratulate you on you finally coming over to the BWG side.
-----------
> Nor has there ever, except apparently in
> your mind, been any struggle over strong vs weak Boards.
You obviously must have been sleeping last September, October, and
November. The topic was all the fashion. Except perhaps on the withered
stump you call the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.
-------------
> The SOs have
> always been, at least in the eyes of those who proposed them in the first
> place, vehicles for the debate over and development of policy
> recommendations
Nice to see you use the word "recommendations". Too bad you didn't use
that word when you wrote section 2(e).
Rather, the 2(e) that you wrote obligates the board to accept an SO action
unless the board finds that the SO acted with bad process. The language
you used gives the SO's a lot more power than merely making
"recommendations".
All I can do is suggest that if you meant something other than what you
wrote, then what are we to think of the rest of the ICANN by-laws? Are
they similarly a poorly drafted form of what you intended.
(And I hasten to add, that the debate was over the written form, not your
rather late interpretations of this morning.)
We've already seen that the very first sentence of Article III,
Section 1 of the bylaws don't mean what is written:
The Corporation and its subordinate entities shall operate to the
maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent
with procedures designed to ensure fairness.
I believe that the Internet community deserves to know whether ICANN is
defined by its articles and by-laws or by your ad hoc interpretations.
> .... By the way, the fact that no one else that I know
> of has read the language the way you do is some evidence that it is not the
> language that is ambiguous.
Perhaps you ought to get out and read the mailing lists a bit more. Even
the board members I talked to in Cambridge had the same interpretations as
I have put forth.
--karl--
