[ga] Re: Memo to Stuart Lynn

["M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>]

(I accidentally posted to the list an earlier draft of this reply to 
Danny. The following corrects some typos and includes other minor 
edits. Apologies for duplicates. Stuart).

Dear Danny:

Thank you for your note.

As I have pointed out to you earlier, the GA would be welcome to meet
at the conference hotel on November 12. There will not be meeting 
space available on November 13, although of course the GA can meet at 
some other location.

I know you mean well by your note. However, I think it is based on
some serious misconceptions. The first is that the security meeting
is intended to "hijack" the agenda to the detriment of the At Large
consideration is entirely misplaced.  Security of the Internet is a
serious matter and must be considered as a matter of urgency and
priority, now more than ever. These are times that require thoughtful
responses. And there is no question  that every organizational agenda
across most of the world has been seriously affected by the horrible
events of September 11.

However, no one in the ICANN community -- and I mean *no one* --
would use the events of September 11 for bureaucratic ends such as
postponing other actions. Accusing people of such motivations (indulging in
fantasy speculations with no evidence whatsoever) is trivializing a
tragedy. I repeat again: *no one*. No one who reads or participates
in the GA list, no one on the ICANN Board, no one in any of the SO's
or constituent ICANN organizations, no one on the ICANN staff, no
one, period. Anyone who accuses any member of the community of such a
motivation will gain no respect whatsoever from me. Let me make that
quite clear.

Second, I fear there is a serious misreading of the bylaws in your
note that may cause misunderstanding. The relevant bylaw states:

"a. The results of the study should be presented to the Board no
later than the second quarterly meeting of the Corporation in 2001;

b. The Board shall review the study, and propose for public comment
whatever actions it deems appropriate as a result of the study, on a
schedule that would permit the Board to take final action on the
study no later than the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2001; and

c. Any actions taken by the Board as a result of the study that
require the selection of any "At Large" Directors should be
implemented on a schedule that will allow any new "At Large"
Directors to be seated no later than the conclusion of the Annual
Meeting of the Corporation in 2002."

Please note that the Board is not *required* to take any action in
November. The schedule must be such as to *permit* it do so. In fact,
the bylaw schedule became impossible when the ALSC was not able to
submit its report by "the second quarterly meeting of 2001", or even
the third quarterly meeting for that matter. The spirit of the bylaw
is precisely that there should be adequate time between submission
and action for study by the Board and for public comment, and thereby
reasonable time between report submission and Board action. Even if the
September 11 events had not transpired, it simply would not be possible for
the Board to take action at the same meeting that the report was 
submitted. There has
to be adequate time for public comment. Would the GA list really like 
the Board to
act on a report that had just been submitted?

The operative part of the bylaws is the deadline of the 2002 Annual
Meeting. That is operative because of the expiration of terms of current
directors. My sense is that the Board intends to make every effort to
meet that deadline, even if it cannot act on the ALSC report until
Accra in March. I repeat the phrase 'every effort". Until a final
decision, however, is made, there can be no ironclad guarantees,
because the content of that decision is unknown. For me to say that
no slippage will occur would be foolish -- neither I nor the Board
have the power to make such an ironclad guarantee (regardless of what
happens in November). Perhaps the Board may have to take some special
action to extend the deadline a few months. I do not want that to
happen, but it may.

I hope the foregoing helps you and those to whom you listen in your
deliberations. Although I am sure the Names Council may want to think
about how to allocate the time on November 12, I am sure you can hold
a productive meeting of the GA at that time. You would also have the
opportunity of inviting the ALSC to present its final conclusions to
the GA if you wish.

I am sure the foregoing is of no consequence to those relative few
who choose to see some sort of evil conspiracy in every ICANN action.
So be it.

Stuart

At 11:40 PM -0400 10/1/01, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Stuart,
>
>The prevailing sentiment within the GA is to convene a meeting of the General
>Assembly on November 13, with or without ICANN's blessing. 
>
>The view has been expressed in our forum, and elsewhere, that a three-day
>session devoted exclusively to security-related issues is an attempt to
>hijack the annual meeting to the detriment of the At-Large.   As the ALSC
>plans to tender its highly controversial recommendations to the Board in
>November, and as the Board is required by the Bylaws to "take final action on
>the study no later than the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2001", a
>failure to provide a Public Forum for comment on such proposals may brook
>bitter consequences.  Please be advised that any course of action, no matter
>how noble, that serves to stifle dissent will not be viewed favorably by the
>membership, or by the media. 
>
>The Corporation has an obligation to operate consistent with procedures
>designed to ensure fairness.  We trust that such fairness will be apparent in
>your upcoming announcements.
>
>
>Best regards,
>Danny Younger
>GA Chair


-- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: lynn@icann.org
--
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