"Poor management of the testbed by NSI?" I know that there have been lots
of emotionally based claims to this effect but would be interested to see
some objective facts.
Chuck Gomes
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 8:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] The rough consensus in Berlin and ICANN's bylaws
Joop,
You wrote:
>
> After the next's day's session with the Board and following deliberation
in
> camera the Board came with it's resolution to change the bylaws and limit
> NSI to one seat.
>
> I do not recall any other instance that "consensus" was asked or measured
> on the gTLD seats.
> Let any other Berlin participant correct me in case my memory is faulty.
>
Off my memory (I did not double check the tape), the subject was picked up
again towards the end of the afternoon, during a discussion on the status of
the testbed.
The subject of the testbed, and the poor management thereof by NSI,
triggered again the debate on the gTLD Constituency. I believe that it was
George Conrades to mention that, if NSI was not willing to autolimit their
participation to the Council to one representative, the Board would have
changed the bylaws to ensure that the spirit of the "one person max. per
organization" would have been applied.
There was a considerable expression of satisfaction (applause), that I would
have called consensus.
Incidentally, may I remind that there were also two persons elected
independently to the Name Council by two different Constituencies that
worked for the same organization, MCI.
One of the two has resigned.
Regards
Roberto
