Re: [council] Agenda for GA meeting, Santiago Chile

["Joe Sims" <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>]

___________________________________________________________________________
____

 This message is intended for the individual or entity named above.  If you
are not the intended
 recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
 notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system.  Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____

I don't want to appear to be butting in to your discussion, but in the role
of legal advisor, I would like to make several points about the GA, as it
is established in the bylaws.

The bylaws say that the GA "shall be an open forum" composed of people who
"have a knowledge and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
which the DNSO has primary responsibility."  They also provide that
"constituencies or GA participants" may propose issues for consideration by
the NC, and that the NC "is responsible for ensuring that all responsible
views have been heard."  The GA nominates, for selection by the NC,
candidates for the DNSO seats on the ICANN Board.  All of these attributes,
taken together, indicate that the GA should be a forum where almost
anything can be discussed and debated, including whether the respective
roles assigned to the GA and the NC are properly balanced, or any other
issue relating to the DNSO scope of responsibility.  The NC retains the
decisional authority for the DNSO, and appoints the Chair; these points
also argue for relatively few constraints on what the GA debates or how it
goes about its debates.  If the GA deteriorates into a non-useful forum,
this will be unfortunate, but if it is the result of its own actions, this
is its right.  Since any person can make any comment he or she desires to
the NC or to ICANN, there seems little reason or justification to try to
constrain topics of discussion in the GA.


                                                                  
 (Embedded                                                        
 image moved   Fay Howard <fay@ripe.net>                          
 to file:      08/17/99 05:02 AM                                  
 pic14675.pcx)                                                    
                                                                  


Extension:

To:   Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>, "Dr. Nii N. Quaynor" <quaynor@ghana.com>
cc:   council@dnso.org (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject:  Re: [council] Agenda for GA meeting, Santiago Chile





Javier, Nii

I support the agenda as published by the Chairman of the meeting and wish
to
thank Nii for his efforts.
Three specific responses to Javier's comments:

At 07:51 AM 8/17/99 +0200, Javier SOLA wrote:
>
> Nii,
>
> I have strong objections to this agenda:
>
>
>>
>> 14:00 DNSO management/administration
>> (Objective: Discussion of GA chair such as the term (one term, or
>> until nov. 1999, or other)
>
>
> The DNSO does not discuss the DNSO chair. The chair is elected by the NC.


Surely, it is not for you or the NC to decide what the DNSO discusses.  The
GA
is entitled to debate this issue whether it gets a vote or not and a good
NC
would be listenting to that debate not silencing it.


>
>>
>> 16:00 Review of Working Groups
>> Working Groups established by the Interim Names Council
>> Working Groups proposed at public informal meeting held after Berlin
>> DNSO General Assembly
>> (Objective: to scope the current work of the DNSO and to establish
>> who is already involved and working on the issues identified. To
>> identify current working group leaders and members.)
>
>
> The informal meeting organized in Berlin by the ccTLDs should NOT be
> mentioned in the agenda. Strong objection.
>


Why shouldn't the Berlin meeting of the DNSO community be mentioned?  Many
turned up to this including a good percentage of those now sitting in the
Names
Council. Some constructive debate was generated in a true bottom-up
spririt.
THe NC is not an executive body and is there to listen to the DNSO
community at
large.

>
>>
>> 17:00 ICANN Board Member Nomination Issue
>> WG-D Report
>> Discussion
>
>
> This issue should be part of the report of WG D above. There is no reason
for
> it to be an independent issue, that is why it was taken out of another
part
> of the agenda.
>
> Closing at 19:00 is far too late. If we take these two issues out we
could
> get back to the original plan of finishing at 18:00, (discussion starts
at
> 16:30 or 17:00, instead of 18:00).

As the time allocated to this meeting is rather limited I support the 19.00
finish.  People are travelling a long way and only get to meet physically a
few
times per year.  There are many items on the agenda and I am sure we can
manage
an extra hour of work

Fay

pic14675.pcx