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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 09:37:38AM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Javier wrote:
> 
>> >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.
>> 
> 
> But if they have not, then all participants in the process have an ethical
> obligation to play by the (old) rules, don't they?

Absolutely not.  You are confusing "ethical obligation" with
"following the strict letter of what is written".  These are vastly
different notions.

The ICANN board, which without question has the deciding authority in
this matter, since they can amend the bylaws, made it very clear that
NSI was to have one representative.  That is the fact of interest. 

[...]

> This is not mere proceduralism.

It most certainly is.

> Amendment of the bylaws would (I hope and
> trust) involve notice and comment, and public discussion.  That would help
> create legitimacy.  It might (maybe) even change the outcome...

It might.  However, that is not Javier's call.  Javier is following
what he understands to be the will of the Board, what, in fact, we
all understand to be the will of the Board.  If the Board is
exceeding its authority that is a matter to be brought up with the
Board, not Javier. 

[...]

> > 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
> 
> This is a very welcome statement.  It is also surprising, since the
> techniques exist and are well known.  See, for example, the IETF system of
> open debate in which decisonmakers all participate.

Give me a break.  The fact that there might be 40 models to chose 
from does not mean that there is no thinking required.

> And, as you noted in
> an earlier post, there is always the option of netcasting proceedings for
> observers.

Oh good! -- you are volunteering to cover the costs, and to collect
the technical people and equipment necessary to accomplish this, and
to manage it.  It's so convenient when one can simply snap ones
fingers, and things get done. 

[...]

> I would put it differently.  It would be unwise, and perhaps immoral, to
> take any decisions until all the stake-holders are represented.  In fact,
> it would be 'worse than crime: a blunder'.

In fact, it will be years before we even are sure who all the 
stakeholders are, if ever.  What do we do in the meantime?  
Rhetorical question -- sorry.  What we do in the meantime, in the 
net tradition, is that we get something going with what we have, and 
reine as we go.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain