> My hope is that you not get all hung up in the "who knew what and
> when did they know it" story of how the interim Board was selected.
> The selection was at best messy and chaotic. No question. So it
> is with the formation of most new organizations.
>
Just one little thing might be interesting: Article XII, from
Magaziner's proposal on through a number of iterations and
alternatives, included a condition (that the Bylaws would not be
amended until June 99), which disappeared at the last minute.
There are doubtless good reasons for its having been dropped; my
question is, Can any member of the interim board tell you what
those reasons were, or who pulled the plug? Is there any record of
the discussion?
> Instead --
>
> - - Focus on the ICANN bylaws and the method for structuring the
> ICANN board **going forward**
>
In this light, I would ask which Article they consider most in need
of amendment, and how they would proceed. Beyond the various
details of the 'day-to-day' processing of recommendations from the
SOs, this will be the strongest test of organizational quality once
the *public at-large membership is actively involved.
Specifically, in the hypothetical case that such consideration was
in the air, does the interim board feel that (a) it should be mooted in
order for AL board candidates to use it in their campaigns for
selection in September, or (b) would they prefer that half of the first
Selected Board be found on the basis of other issues, and then let
them take it back to their constituency?
More broadly, does the board see it as their role to produce a slate
of issues for the AL member selection procedure?
========
An earlier post on this thread:
> However, there is a significant group of players that
> seems to include IBM, that believes ICANN's flow-down
> contract arrangements are the ideal means for applying
> regulations, norms, and infrastructure taxes to those
> using the Internet on a uniform global scale.
>
...
> The underlying mechanism is the GAC - which both decides
> the applicable law and normative arrangements for gTLDs
> and IP addresses, but also gets the governments to apply
> the same law and norms to their "sovereign" ccTLDs.
>
> It's a seductive way to bring about a global Internet
> legal regime that many of these players believe necessary
> for E-Commerce and consumer protection.
>
Is there more than merely a conceptual parallel to the MAI
deliberations? When the whistle was blown on the OECD,
negotiations moved to various 'distributed' fora; the WTO, APEC,
and the EC-US trade platform whose name escapes me would
never think of 'setting policy' for each other, but just somehow, they
will all proceed smoothly to the same kinds of treaty arrangements.
Of course there are no legal grounds for objection because they
havent been signed yet by national govt's -- but its easy to imagine
that a case in any one trade area (or TLD) will then be defended on
the grounds that 'competitiveness' with the other areas requires it.
'Veni, divi, vici'....
kerry
kerry
