Re: [discuss] Unofficial minutes June 11 1999 Names Council Meeting

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@chaos.com>]

Javier,

> For the record, your reporting on the first
> part of the meeting is
> innacurate. I welcome the fact that you inform, but you should not
> report
> on a part of a conversation that you have not heard complete, at it
> sends
> the wrong signals, and bits are taken out of context. You should be
> specially careful when the official scribe for the meeting disagrees
> on
> what you are reporting.

This is a style meeting and record control that is
somewhat alien to me.  In any kind of open process with
which I'm familiar, there is no "official scribe," and
the participants are free to discuss what if fact occurred.
It this all part of "bottom-up" collaboration?

For the record, how did you come to assume any authority
in this matter?


> Don Telage was told that we had not received
> from ICANN the name of the one
> gTLD constituency representative specified in the Berlin resolution of
> the
> ICANN Board. He responded that there were three of them and was told
> that
> we had been told by ICANN (Berlin resolution) that there was to be
> only
> one, and that we were a committee of ICANN. The Board is in command
> on
> ICANN procedural matters.

No, the Articles of Incorporation are definitive, followed by
the provisions of the Bylaws.  All those participating in the
affairs of the organization have a fiduciary duty to follow
the provisions of the authoritative instruments.  To do
otherwise
subjects you to liabilities under California law.


--tony