> Mr. Jim Rutt > > Dear Jim, > > You can appreciate, > given my prior correspondence with Don Telage, that ICANN is attempting to > reach and maintain a position of fairness to all the parties concerned in > this matter. Which is why we threw not just NSI's people off the June 11th Names Council teleconference, but also Michael Sondow, a qualified observer from the Non-Commercial Constituency. Mr. Sondow has openly opposed me, like NSI has done, so I took revenge on him by supporting Vint Cerf's smear campaign and kicking Mr. Sondow off the teleconference. That's only fair, isn't it? > As NSI's representatives at the Berlin ICANN meetings have surely informed > you, there appeared to be a near-unanimous sentiment expressed at the public > ICANN meeting on May 26 that no one company should be able to place more > than one representative on the Names Council. Of course, the consensus sentiments and our bylaws don't apply to our friends in MCI and CORE. They can put as many people as they want on the Names Council: Theresa Swinehart and Susan Anthony from MCI...Javier Sola, Ken Stubbs, Amadeu Abril i Abril, and three or four other CORE directors... whatever. But for the people we don't like, like NSI and the users, representation on the NC is strictly forbidden. > The peculiar situation of the > gTLD Constituency Group -- at the moment, NSI is the only member -- means > that, absent compliance with the Board's request, a single company would > select one-seventh of the members of the Names Council. It seemed clear in > Berlin that the community consensus, with which I and the Board agree, was > that no one company should have that level of influence in a body that is > designed to be controlled by ISOC and CORE. What's more, the supermajority that CORE has on the Names Council is fragile, since we couldn't figure out any way to get CORE people elected from the ccTLD constituency, and still are unsure that we can control all three seats from the NCDNHC. So to let NSI have three seats on the Names Council is too dangerous for us. > Your letter of last week, which nominates an employee plus two of your > lawyers to the Names Council, is not consistent with the views of ISOC and CORE. > Since this is the second letter from Network Solutions which does > not accept ISOC/CORE's dictates, > the ICANN Board must now do what ISOC and CORE have told us to do. > In this case that means to > proceed with its stated intention to amend the pertinent portions of the > Bylaws in the absence of your voluntary agreement to limit your > representation to one member. We had planned on some such change in any case, mind you, because all these intrusions of people who aren't under the sway of ISOC and CORE have frankly become very irritating to us. > In the next few days, we will post the following proposed amendment to the > ICANN Bylaws for public comment in accordance with our normal procedures for pretending to be interested in what people have to say. <snip bylaw blah-blah-blah> > The other members of the ICANN Board and I do not believe that amending our > Bylaws to eliminate avenues for the pursuit of special interest objectives > is a useful exercise unless it serves to give ISOC and CORE yet more power than they already have. > All of us have more important things to do like keeping a jump ahead of the Department of Justice. > As a new > player, and one committed to making the system work for everyone by your > recent public statement, it would be a valuable contribution to making the > DNSO successful if you accepted the consensus view and voluntarily agreed to > name only one member to the Names Council. This would not only quell the fears of CORE and ISOC that they might some day lose a vote of the Names Council requiring a two-thirds majority, but make life for all of us much simpler. > > Sincerely, > > - Mike > > Michael M. Roberts > Interim President and Chief Executive Officer
