RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Policy is subject to the consensus process exactly as the bylaws state.  If
a contract changes policy, it would be subject to the consensus process.  In
this case, there is no documented policy involved.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 1:59 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; david@farrar.com; ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions


At 01:23 PM 3/12/2001 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>As Dave Crocker pointed out in a separate post, requiring consensus
>decisions for contract negotiations will not work.  ICANN's only source of
>power is through contracts.  If they have to wait for a consensus decision
>on every contract they negotiate, their ability to function will come to a
>screeching halt.
[snip]

         Let me try and parse this, Chuck.

1. ICANN exercises power only through contracts.
2. Contracts are not subject to the consensus process.
3. Therefore, no exercise of ICANN power is subject to the consensus
process.

         Have I got that right?

Certainly, I don't believe that anyone can point to a
>documented policy with regard to separation of registry and registrar.  As
>Roberto pointed out in the open forum, he believes that there was an
implied
>policy, but even if that was true, I don't believe that such an implied
>policy was specifically developed as a consensus policy.  Instead a few
>individuals simply decided to include such provisions in contracts.

         "A few individuals"?  I'd expected better from you, Chuck.  Let me 
quote from <http://www.icann.org/general/agreements.htm>:

"Policies adopted through the ICANN process are implemented by agreement of 
entities involved in the operation of the Internet. In some cases, this 
agreement occurs after the policy is adopted; in other cases the 
implementation is pre-arranged through written agreements. Some of those 
agreements are: . . . Agreements Among ICANN, the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc. (November 10, 1999)."

I'll grant you that those agreements (which include the provisions on 
registrar-registry separation that you are now trying to avoid) were not 
the product of a process beginning in the Supporting 
Organizations.  Nonetheless, they were made available by the ICANN Board 
for public comment, were the subject of extensive debate at a Board 
meeting, were revised in several respects in light of community reactions, 
and were finally adopted by the Board when the community was satisfied that 
-- as revised -- they embodied appropriate policy.  Are the "few 
individuals" you're referring to, by any chance, the ICANN Board?

Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html