Re: [council] Finalization of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for theDNS"]

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I am increasingly confused about ICANN policy and would appreciate
clarification of how to determine what policies were in place previous to
ICANN's creation.
I assume that any claim that something is a pre-exisitng policy must be
evidenced by reference to the Articles, By-laws or RFPs.
However, this is clearly a foundational issue that requires clarification.
Louis: Can you assist in this please.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 1:52 AM
Subject: [Re: [council] Finalization of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for
theDNS"]


> To the Names Council:
>
> In an effort to clarify matters:
>
>    1.  The policies that ICANN follows are not limited to those adopted
> by the ICANN Board since ICANN was created.  They also include the
> policies previously in place, subject of course to revision through the
> community-based ICANN processes.
>
>    2.  At its 2 June 2001 meeting, the Names Council passed the
> following resolution:  "The Names Council considers that multiple roots
> are outside the scope of the ICANN DNSO."  Milton Mueller voted for that
> resolution.
>
>    3.  Two days later, at its 4 June 2001 meeting, the ICANN Board of
> Directors discussed the 28 May discussion draft of "A Unique,
> Authoritative Root for the DNS."  The full minutes are not yet
> completed, but a recording of the proceedings is available though
>
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/agenda-bod-060401.html
>,
> as are the scribe's notes.  As the scribe reports, the Board reached
> consensus that the discussion draft should be revised based on comments
> and posted in final.
>
>    4.  Individual directors of ICANN have an important role, when acting
> in conjunction with the other Board members, in adoption of new and
> changed ICANN policies.  Individual directors do not speak on behalf of
> ICANN, however, except where they have been authorized to do so under
> the authority of the Board.  The Board has elected Stuart Lynn as
> ICANN's President and Chief Executive Officer, "in charge of all of its
> activities and business," and as such he is authorized to speak for
> ICANN.  As Dr. Lynn stated in presenting the finalized document:
>
>    "Based on those comments, I have finalized the document. This final
>     version has been posted as the third member (ICP-3) of the Internet
>     Coordination Policy series.
>
>    "Many members of the community informed me that they felt the
>     document is fundamentally correct and applauded it as a faithful and
>     well-documented statement of the long-standing policies underlying
>     the principle of a single, authoritative root capable of preserving
>     a robust, unique naming system for Internet users worldwide. Many
>     also provided me with constructive suggestions for improvement.
>     Helpful suggestions also came from some of those who were critical
>     of the document.
>
>    "Some of the latter raised the objection that the document is
>     creating new policy without going through proper process. As the
>     discussion draft pointed out, however, it did not create new policy,
>     but was carefully limited to articulating existing policy. The
>     creation of new policies implicates ICANN's community-based
>     consensus-development processes, but until those processes achieve
>     new policies the pre-existing policies (whether developed through
>     previous ICANN processes or received by ICANN at its creation)
>     should be evenhandedly followed.
>
>    "In evaluating the document, the essential focus should be on what
>     policies ICANN has developed or received, rather than what policies
>     one wishes were in place. This essential enquiry depends heavily on
>     documentation of past statements and actions; for this reason the
>     discussion draft undertook a careful review of these and, in the
>     final version, I have added some additional citations that were
>     suggested in the ensuing discussion. Although some of the critical
>     comments had very thoughtful statements about what policy should be,
>     they lacked specific documentation that the established policy
>     differs from that stated in the discussion draft."
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis Touton
> ICANN Vice-President and General Counsel
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Finalization of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for
> theDNS"
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
> Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
> To: Milton Mueller <Mueller@syr.edu>
> CC: <council@dnso.org>, <owner-council@dnso.org>
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Joe Sims wrote:
>
> > Milton, not only are your views minority, but your characterizations and
> > facts are wrong.   As Stuart described in detail in the original draft,
and
> > at the public forum meeting in Stockholm, this is a statement of
existing
> > policy, not an attempt to change policy or create new policy.
>
> Milton - You ought to save the message from which the above quote was
> obtained; it is a first-class example of Orwellian Newspeak.
>
> The facts are these:
>
> The Board of Directors of ICANN has never adopted any policy on the
> matters discussed in the draft.
>
> Neither has the DNSO (which happens to be the forum designated by the
> by-laws as the focal point for DNS policy.)
>
> So it is not correct say that it is "a statement of existing policy" of
> ICANN.
>
> In Stockholm there was a bit of chat about Stuart Lynn's document.
>
> The chat was civil and friendly.
>
> But that chat should not be taken as implying agreement on the
> underlying topic.
>
> As events transpired in Stockholm, the question did not rise to to the
> level of a properly posted resolution, much less one that was voted upon
> by the Board, and much much less one that was approved by the Board of
> Directors.
>
> > In addition, the Board in Stockholm authorized Stuart to finalize and
> > publish this document as a statement of existing policy; perhaps you
> > were out of the room.
>
> If the Board of Directors did this, then I, as a member of that Board,
> must have also been out of the room.
>
> And the person taking the minutes must have also been absent -- There is
> nothing in the minutes about any board decision to elevate Stuart's
> document to a policy statement.
>
> So it is incorrect to say that "the Board in Stockholm authorized"
> anybody to do anything with this document.
>
> By-the-way, Joe Sims does not speak for ICANN.
>
> --karl--
>