[discuss] Re: ICANN Board resolutions, public and not so public

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roeland and all,

  I cant speak necessarily as to whether the DNSO at http://www.dnso.org
and it's relative discuss list discuss@dsno.org, is an ongoing practice
of disenfranchisement, but it does seem that after several requests
to the list manager that archival to the discuss@dsno.org list is either
still not working properly, or posts are being "Selectively" not archived
for some unknown reason.

  This is particularly concerning for many reasons.  But the most glaring
an obvious seems to me anyway that if they are unable to manage their
own mailing lists, one must wonder how they feel qualified to manage
the other more important functions of the DNSO itself.  This is also not
to mention that good two way communications would be essential in
performing those functions in any sort of meaningful manner...

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> I haven't seen a post on the DNSO.ORG list for some time now. Is this
> yet another disenfranchisement?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-discuss@dnso.org
> > [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > Joop Teernstra
> > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 1999 10:47 PM
> > To: ifwp@ifwp.org; domain-policy@lists.internic.net; discuss@dnso.org
> > Subject: ICANN Board resolutions, public and not so public
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We have had little discussion about the resolutions that the
> > ICANN interim
> > Board made in Berlin.
> > Certainly not all appeared in the press release.
> >
> > Let's enumerate some of them.
> >
> > 1. Not to have an open Board meeting in Berlin.
> >
> > The public meeting in which some members the Board replied to public
> > questions should not be confused with an open Board meeting.
> > We did not
> > hear the Board's deliberations on the merits of the contituency
> > applications, for example. We do not know the positions of each Board
> > member on the decisions taking in Singapore on dividing the DNSO into
> > constituencies and the rationale of limiting the
> > constituencies to exclude
> > the representation of the Individual DN owner.
> > As Richard Sexton pointed out, most members of the Board
> > remained totally
> > silent and left the talking to Esther, Mike Roberts and
> > George Conrades.
> >
> >
> > 2. Not to have the entire Board present at the Press conference.
> >
> > Only Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts were there, flanked by 2 staff from
> > their lawyers Jones&Day,   Mr Sims and Mr Louis Tuton (sp?).
> > This enabled the rest of the Board to hide their positions
> > and to escape
> > from possibly awkward questions by the press.
> >
> > 3. Not to have the decisions made in the closed meetings of
> > 26 and 27 April
> > in Room 217 of the Adlon Hotel presented by a Board member to
> > the waiting
> > DNS community,  but to leave this job to the ICANN lawyer, Mt Tuton.
> > Mr Tuton did not volonteer any information about the
> > decisions taken on the
> > application of the Individuals for a recognised constituency,
> > but only on
> > being asked, revealed that indeed a resolution has been
> > passed on the IDNO
> > application and that it was resolved to take no action on the
> > application.
> >
> > 4. Not to publish the Board resolution on the only timely bottom-up
> > application for recognition of a constituency, the IDNO application.
> >
> > This has led to speculation as to why.
> > At least during the press conference the issue was addressed and the
> > resolution was mentioned. Upon being asked, the two Board
> > members present
> > explained the resolution by referring to the still unresolved
> > issues of
> > ICANN at large membership.
> > This is the point where the other Board members should have
> > been quizzed
> > about their positions on the issue and the likelihood of
> > action prior to
> > the Santiago meeting.
> >
> > The incompleteness of the press release leaves an
> > uncomfortable question
> > mark about possible other secret resolutions.
> >
> >
> > --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
> > the Cyberspace Association,
> > the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> > http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208