<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Finalization of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for theDNS"]
Erica --
For my own attempt to work out what pre-existing policies are in
place, and to measure the new policy paper against those pre-existing
policies, you might take a look at my posting at
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=241&mode=&order=0&thold=0>.
Jon
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:19:08 +0800, Erica Roberts wrote:
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--
> >
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|