Diane and all, Diane Cabell wrote: > Kerry Miller wrote: > > > Karl, > > Thanks for running through the history, but it still looks to me > > reasonable to suppose that the BoD will be able (is charged, in > > fact) to evaluate a proposal originatng from an SO in the light of all > > other inputs. Just because DNSO says it wants WIPO rules, say, > > doesnt mean it's automatically approved. > > I believe Karl does not question the Board's right right to evaluate and/or > override an SO proposal. As I understand him, he is concerned that the At-large, > currently the only potential home for the individual, cannot propose policy > itself. This is how I understand Karls concern or point as well. And a relevant concern it certainly is. If you recall some 2 months ago Mike (The Robber) Roberts, made a particular point of being very opposed to individual members having any real position or control over policy. I believe he referred to these folks a "Kooks", if memory serves me correctly. I believe this was in a wired article. I could pull it out if someone really wants to see it I suppose.. > > > If the DNSO declined to propose adding a TLD for the new nation of Cabellia (hey, > this is my scenario here), Karl's interpretation of the bylaws is that the > At-large may not independently introduce such a proposal. Yes, and as I said above this is how I understand Karls concern as well. One that is defiantly legitimate if as you recall Becky Burr herself stated very emphatically back in december that this process was to be Bottom-up and stakeholder driven. > > > VI.2.c acknowledges that policy proposals may be introduced from non-SO sources; > > "(c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not received from > a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any, with primary > responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for initial > consideration and recommendation to the Board." > > There is nothing anywhere in the bylaws that prohibits the At-large from making > proposals although there is unfortunately no mechanism established to encourage > it. It's still pretty hard for one or more individuals to put an organization > together to work through a proposal, especially if the SOs can ignore that input. > > > > No recommendation of a Supporting Organization shall be adopted unless > > > the votes in favor of adoption would be sufficient for adoption by the > > > Board without taking account of [*]either the Directors selected by the > > > Supporting Organization or their votes[*]. > > > Now there's an interesting phrase! Does anyone (Diane?) have an > > exegesis? > > On routine business conducted by the full (elected) Board, a simple majority of > those present (given a quorum) is required to act. The passage quoted above > (VI.2.e) is intended to remove the interested SO from voting on its own proposal, > thereby requiring a higher level of support from the remainder of the Board > (including the at-large) to approve it. [The I-Board and by-law amendments, on > the other hand, require a 2/3 majority vote.] > > I'm not sure offhand, but the *either/or* perhaps intends to eliminate the SO > from both quorum and vote calculations. Interesting question whether VI.2.e > would affect the number of directors necessary to change the bylaws if an SO > proposal required such an amendment. > > Diane Cabell > http://www.mama-tech.com > Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP > Boston, MA Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
