There
was a whole lot of talk about whether the DNSO was within ICANN as a committee
or outside it as a separate organization, but this was not focussed on the power
of policy-making. Much of it concerned whether the DNSO could fall under
the liability umbrella of ICANN, or whether ICANN was going to insist that it
remain separate because their insurance wouldn't cover the
DNSO.
At all
times (in my poor sainted recollection) there was a strong preference to remain
within ICANN on the part of what would become the DNSO - not only for the
liability reason, but also because of expense.
But
who am I against ten megabytes?
Antony
-----Original Message-----At 03:08 AM 6/22/99 , Antony Van Couvering wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of A.M. Rutkowski
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 6:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] The Sims-Auerbach Correspondence (was: The CPT- ICANN Correspondence
I don't know where you got this idea of the strong SO/weak board, but it's
complete news to me.
There must be about 10 Megabytes of dialogue on this
subject last year where this was the obvious consensus
In addition, it was the explicit premise during the
ICANN Bylaws drafting process.
--tony
