Thanks, Karl.
We are indeed soliciting comments as you suggest at the end. We have posted
the announcement to multiple lists - and we heereby solicit further comments!
Esther Dyson
At 05:09 PM 04/08/99 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> The ICANN Board has posted a proposed set of amendments to the ICANN Bylaws
>> relating to the DNSO Names Council. Most notably, the proposed amendments
>> are intended to limit any one company or organization to one representative
>> on the DNSO Names Council.
>
>A couple of points:
>
> 1. These proposed changes were not in effect during the Berlin meeting.
>
> Indeed, at the time of the Berlin meeting, the By-laws gave all
> recognized constituncies the power and right to designate three
> people to the names council of the DNSO.
>
> Yet when that was tried by one recognized constituency, those people
> were excluded despite the presence of ICANN's CEO and legal counsel at
> that meeting.
>
> ICANN was acting beyond its then-existing bylaws, and in advance of
> this amendment.
>
> This amendment does not have retroactive effect.
>
> It is evident that the the gTLD Constituency was acting within its
> rights at the time of the Berlin, and that the exclusion of
> its designated names council representatives was an act by ICANN in
> contravention of ICANN's bylaws.
>
> Given that the DNSO has proceeded into substantive issues, this
> failure taints everything that the DNSO has done to date.
>
>
> 2. This amendment cites an "evident consensus". How was that "evident
> consensus" ascertained? Certainly at the time of the Berlin meeting
> this question had neither been clearly asked nor discussed in any
> forum. And having listened into the Berlin meetings, I can attest
> that I did not perceive any discussion of these matters, much less
> the "clear sentiment of the attendees and online particpants."
>
> If I don't make myself clear, let me be blunt:
>
> I perceive no evidence to support the claim that there was such a
> consensus in existance at the time of the Berlin meeting, in
> particular at the time of the exclusion of the gTLD's designated
> representives to the Names Council.
>
> I do agree that at the present time there may indeed be such a
> consensus, a consensus that has evolved *after* the exclusion
> occurred.
>
> But this is merely a guess based on exactly the same evidence
> as is available to ICANN's board. And I, like the ICANN board,
> could be utterly wrong whether such a consensus actually exists
> at the present time.
>
> Rather than the blind and unsubstantated claim of "evident consensus"
> made in the ICANN anouncement, may I suggest that ICANN actually take
> an explicit poll of the various mailing lists to elicit actual opinions
> pro and con on this question.
>
> I will begin the process: I think that this amendment is a useful
> improvement to the ICANN by-laws.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
