Re: [council] FW: [ga] GA Adcom Election Committee

["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.
___________________________________________________________________________
____

With all due respect to the mailing list, the fact that "it" has come to a
decision does not change the bylaws or the structure of ICANN.  The fact
that some people think the world should be different than it is does not
change the world.  The NC also does not have the ability to make these sort
of changes.  If the NC -- or indeed any other group -- thinks a change in
the bylaws or structure of ICANN is desirable, they should make that case
through the ICANN structure, but the only group that can make such a change
is the Board.  In this environment, the existence of mistrust of some
people for some other group of people seems to be inevitable, no matter who
the people or what they do, and is hardly by itself a reason for change.  I
think we would all agree that the NC could perform better than it has to
date, but it is early, and the better approach is to make the NC (and the
DNSO) work better in the future.


                                                                  
 (Embedded                                                        
 image moved   Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>             
 to file:      10/05/99 01:54 AM                                  
 pic24894.pcx)                                                    
                                                                  


Extension:

To:   "Names Council (E-mail)" <council@dnso.org>
cc:   "'Joe Sims'" <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com> (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject:  Re: [council] FW: [ga] GA Adcom Election Committee




Greetings,

I certainly see your logic, the problem now is going to be dealing
with the fact that the GA (that is the mailing list) has come to
the decision that they should start forming this body.  I believe
the "problem/requirement" is the belief that the General Assembly
should be an independent entity that votes, and makes its own
determination.  Not to mention that there is an extremely strong
mistrust of the Names Council.

I am not sure of a solution for this, but I believe we should
look closely at the discussions, and attempt to come up with
some sort of compromise.  One thought, is perhaps to designate
the DNSO ICANN Board reps to be the AdCom, and the runners
up in the election could fill up any remaining positions if it
is determined that there should be more than 3 "seats."  Or
perhaps the DNSO Board reps and the GA chairman would
represent the AdCom...

I haven't thought this through quite yet, so someone attack
my logic please.   I doubt any compromise would please everyone.

Theresa, has any thing of this kind come up on the Committee D
discussions?  It seems somewhat related doesn't it?

See you all (figuratively) in a couple hours,
Richard

Dennis Jennings wrote:

> Joe,
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with you.  The idea of a GA elected AdCom is
> completely at variance with the By Laws and it (the AdCom) will most
likely
> attempt to usurp the role of the NC and its support staff (to be
> appointed).  This is a very bad idea that undermines the existing
> structures.
>
> I wonder what problem / requirement is being asserted here ?
>
> Dennis

> >
> > In my role as unofficial legal advisor to the Council, let me offer the
> > following.  My reading of the Bylaws is not compatible with the
creation
> of
> > some GA AdCom structure.  The Bylaws provide only for a Chair of the
GA,
> > who is appointed by the NC.  In addition, the Bylaws contemplate the
the
> > work of the DNSO should be done in working groups and drafting
committees
> > under the management of the NC.  The GA, as the Bylaws are now written,
> is
> > the pool from which those groups or committees are drawn, but does not
> have
> > a direct role in the development or determination of consensus, nor any
> > other specific duty other than to serve as a source of nominees for the
> > Board, who are then selected by the NC.  The Bylaws do not contemplate
> any
> > circumstances when the GA would vote on any issue or elect anyone to
> > anything.  Thus, an elected GA AdCom would seem to be not only
> superfluous
> > but also potentially the source of tension with the NC-elected Chair
and
> > the NC's role to manage the work of the DNSO.

pic24894.pcx