> I'm confused. You'd like to have a indiv/n-c SO that could make
> recommendations, but you accept that since the BoD takes the
> responsibility, it can take or make proposals where it likes.
I understand your confusion -- there are a number of issues that
are intermixed.
First is the powers of the board vis-a-vis SO's. The recent
"interpretation" of ICANN's counsel is that the board has plenary power.
Yet, if that is the case, what is the meaning of the requirement in
VI.2.(e) that obligates the board accept SO proposals unless certain
limited conditions have happened? Is that language meaningless? If so,
why is that language there at all?
Until that language is actually removed, it is necessary to think is that
it has meaning and that, as it says on its face, it restricts the ability
of the board to reject SO proposals.
If ICANN's counsel believes what he says, they he can prove it by
telling ICANN's to remove that language.
Second, the At-Large only gets to elect something less than half of the
board seats. So, even if it were to elect people with a unified opinion
on a matter, it would still be a minority.
On the other hand, if an SO, which gets only three seats, on the board,
comes up with a proposal, the still-existing VI.2.(e) still obligates the
board to accept it.
Again, until VI.2.(e) is removed, we have a disconnect between the written
language and what ICANN's counsel is saying.
If VI.2.(e), and its sibling VI.2.(f), were removed, then I'd agree with
you that a degree of balance has been restored.
But until those sections are removed, the SO's have something that is
obligatory on the board, and the general membership (which doesn't even
exist yet) has nothing.
> And (to touch up the edge with a little ol Arkansas stone) if that
> implies that indivs and n-c DN holders would have to behave like an
> SO, is it consistent to wait for Big-o-Daddy's *permission to quote-
> organize-unquote? Wouldnt the strongest argument for taking an
> ALM proposal seriously be that it originated in an individualized,
> non-commercial -- i.e. democratic -- way?
Could you restate that? I'm not getting your point.
I treat the issue of Individual and Non-Commercial elements within the SO
quite apart from their role in the general membership.
If 2(e) and 2(f) were removed then there would be more of a sense of
balance.
But those sections are there, and as long as they are there the locus of
policy formation is in the SO's.
But even if they were to be removed then one still has to ask, why should
Individual Domain Name Owners and Non-Commercial domain name owners be
excluded from a forum which includes Trademark Owners, ISPs, Registrars,
*TLD operators, etc?
--karl--
