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

[Javier <javier@aui.es>]

>5. Despite (4) no formal action is taken to amend the By Laws, which
>remain unchanged at the time of the teleconference.

The ICANN Board Berlin resolution basically said that they would allow only
one representative. If NSi tried to force its hand, they would change the
bylaws. They are probably in the process of doing so.

>6.  Despite (5), someone from ICANN, instructs Javier Sola to ensure that
>only one NSI Name is allowed into the teleconference, and he complies with
>this direction.

This is false, that is why I objected to innacurate reporting. I was
following the Berlin resolution, the only direction we have received from
the Board on this issue. I had no other instructions. We had not received
the name of the NSi repersentative (we have not received it yet).

>Is that a correct summary of the events?

>Particularly at a moment when there is no membership, and the ICANN
>Board's legitimacy is, to be frank, somewhat debated, it would seem
>essential to comply with the letter of the rules in order to build trust
>in the community. 

The ligitimacy of the Board is contested by NSi (who is not interested on
having a stable ICANN) and by other people directly or undirectly in they
payroll. See for example comments just received in this list from Tony
Rutkowsky, of whom yesterday NSi declared that he worked for them.

http://www.latimes.com/HOME/BUSINESS/t000054084.html

We are looking for a way in which we can make things as open as possible
and still be operational. We hope that by the time the Names Council has to
start deciding on policy, all the constituencies will be operational and we
will be able to make sure anybody can listen in in any of our meetings,
might they be physical meetings or teleconferences.

Javier