Re: [ga] Forwarded from the NCDNHC list

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

Danny and all assembly members,

  Yes it is VERY interesting indeed.  When any board of any corporation
takes it upon themselves to purposefully to go against their own process
of advisement, and such advisement was unanimous, it should be a very
rare occurrence and warrants some explanation.  In that the ICANN
board serves in the public trust, of so they espouse to, it normal
and reasonable for them to publicly explain such a departure in
some detail.  Therefore I would have to agree that the silence
to which Danny here refers is more than just interesting...

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> This was sent to ICANN Board yesterday. So far I have
> received a response from only two Board members,
> Karl Auerbach and Amadeu Abril-Abril, both of whom
> expressed some sympathy for our concerns. Normally Vint
> Cerf is quite responsive, if only to acknowledge receipt
> and issue some noncommital response defending his
> actions - in this case his silence is interesting.
>
> =====
>
> Dr. Dr. Cerf:
> I have learned how the Board acted on the .org divestiture
> and am disappointed and even a little shocked. It appears
> that you decided not to follow the DNSO's unanimous
> recommendation that the ORG be divested to a non-profit
> registry representative of noncommercial Internet interests.
>
> Amazingly, this was the one part of the policy that was never
> controversial. It was supported by business users, IPR
> representatives, registrars and of course the noncommercial
> entities themselves.
>
> I spent about 8 months working on the .org Task Force
> and related activities. We followed the designated ICANN
> process to the letter. We achieved a real consensus, and
> a unanimous vote. Almost all of the public comments were
> favorable, and the few that were not did not provide any
> basis for deviating from the recommendation of a
> non-profit registry representative of noncommercial
> internet interests.
>
> There are serious issues of credibility and commitment here.
> If ICANN is to establish legitimacy and stability it must adhere
> to its own processes. Its decisions must be backed by careful
> documentation of their rationales (there is not, as far as I can
> tell, ANY reasoning or documentation behind your decision.)
> Above all, it must respect the work of the people
> who devote their time to making your processes work.
>
> Do you share that view?
>
> If so, can you explain to me why, after this result, anyone
> should take ICANN and its processes seriously and commit
> any time or money to them?
>
> Your argument, made during the Board meeting,
> that the DNSO offers only "advice," and that advice can
> be disregarded, is frankly insulting to the people who are
> required to spend thousands of dollars to maintain
> membership in DNSO and orders of magnitude more than
> that in donated time and materials.
>
> It is also legally incorrect. Please read the ICANN bylaws regarding
> the role of supporting  organizations.* Under the bottom-up model
> that Dr. Postel designed, policy directions are supposed to originate
> with supporting organizations and be passed up to the Board.
> If the Board disagrees with an element of the policy, it is
> supposed to return the policy to the supporting organization
> for modification. The consensus-development apparatus lies in
> the SOs. The Board is supposed to follow consensus not
> dictate it.
>
> Certainly the Board has the *power* to ignore its supporting
> organizations, but should it? If it does, why are they there?
>
> A decent respect for ICANN's own processes, a sense of public
> accountability, not to mention simple common sense, would
> dictate following a policy that took such a long time to develop
> and commanded such widespread support.
>
> I hope you have a good explanation for your actions in Accra.
> I look forward to your reply.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Former Names Council member for NCDNHC
> Former Chair, Names Council Task Force on .org
>
> * Supporting Organizations shall have "the primary responsibility for
> developing and recommending substantive policies regarding those
> matters falling within their specific responsibilities." ICANN bylaws,
>
> Article VI, Section 2(b).
>
> "Article VI, Section 2(f) If the Board declines to accept any
> recommendation of a Supporting Organization, it shall return the
> recommendation to the Supporting Organization for further consideration,
> along with a statement of the reasons it declines to accept the
> recommendation."
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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