> I'm sure this won't be the last word, but it will be from me.
I am certainly glad that you have finally demolished the authority of
the SO's.
It's good to know that the board is going to have the ability and
responsibility to entirely ignore, review, reject, or completey rewrite
anything that the PSO, DNSO, or ASO might decide.
I hope you do your duty as counsel and remove the clearly deadwood and
misleading language of sections 2(e) and 2(f) from the ICANN bylaws.
You may, as well, also remove that by-law requirement that ICANN operate
in an open manner, since that too is apparently something has also been
interpreted to be a nullity and subservent to your privately-imposed
requrements of "efficiency" and "efficacy".
------
> Note that Section 1(a) of Article VI of the Bylaws says: "There shall be
> advisory bodies known as Supporting Organizations." Section 2(b) starts
> out with "The Supporting Organizations shall serve as advisory bodies to
> the Board . . . ." The notion that the SOs were advisors, not
> decision-makers, is not a new one.
Nobody said it wasn't a new idea.
What is being said is that your language is such that that "advice" is
obligatory on the board unless the board can find, under the rather
narrow 2(e) exceptions, a basis for rejecting that advice. Otherwise
your languate *requires* that the SO "advice* be adopted by the board
as the law of the net.
The thing that your interpretation of this morning adds is a notion that
the board, in order to meet its fiduciary obligation of being the
final authority in corporate matters, has to be able to override the SO's.
Notice that I did not say "new notion" -- We and many others told you all
about this last summer and fall.
And, what is amusing, is how hard you fought against a clear statement to
that effect last summer and fall.
--karl--
