[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG - And linkage to ICANN Reform/Restructure

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

Alejandro and all,

  You are quite right as to Eric's interest in getting things moving
quickly on the reform/restructering track.  I was the one that suggested
that be a separate thread.  None the less as you mention these areas
( .ORG boD decision and Reform/Restructuring of ICANN ) do indeed
converge on several levels.  Therefore it would seem appropriate
fro the time being to just change the subject line of this thread
to indicate such, which I am doing in this response for purposes
of clarity and understanding.

  As Karl pointed out as far as DNSO restructuring with respect to
the BOD decision and .ORG, it would seems that in this particular area
unless o until that restructuring and especially Reform of the ICANN
BoD and staff has been effected, the .ORG BOD decision is in violation
of the ICANN Bylaws as they stand now.  Ergo, such a decision
requires either a rethink and redo, or disciplinary action of the BOD
members voting in favor of this .ORG decision in departure of the
DNSO TF recommendation's.  In the likely event that such disciplinary
action against those BOD members is not taken, it would than seem
wise for the BOD to seriously reconsider it's decision or perhaps
face other legal action if failing to do so...

Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:

> Dear Karl,
>
> the Board resolution and the discussion which the staff is instructed to
> take into account for the RFP contain and extend the DNSO recommendation,
> some of the minority opinions expressed through the process within the
> DNSO, and some precautions which were not even outlined then.
>
> One of them addresses a concern expressed in the last few hours by Adam
> Peake, viz that a company interested in the business of .org set up a
> "front" organization. Only a couple of the efforts of this kind have been
> mentioned explicitly here. Some NCDNHC participants have been part of
> efforts to set up .org steering organizations with known business backing;
> others have the suspicion expressed by Adam.
>
> As Milton has implied, a number of points in this conversation have begun
> to converge. Doubtless it would be useful to concentrate an effort in the
> reform process. As someone else has written that is, of course, a separate
> track, and as Eric has underlined, one to move on ASAP.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
> UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
> http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
> *
> ** 10 Aniversario de Internet Society - www.inet2002.org en Washington, DC
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
>  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:
> >
> > > you are getting weirder and weirder by the minute. If the Board takes up
> > > input it's wrong too now?
> >
> > This was an instance when the DNSO actually did its job and came up with a
> > thoughtful recommendation.  The recommendation by the Names Council may be
> > seen at: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020205.NCdotorg-to-ICANN.html
> > And the actual text of the material endorsed by the Names Council may be
> > seen at: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCdotorg-report.html
> >
> > ICANN's bylaws obligate the board to follow supporting organization
> > recommendations unless the board finds that certain conditions exist.
> >
> > There was, in fact a DNSO recommendation.  And the board did not find that
> > that recommendation fell short of any of the requirements of Article VI
> > Section 2(e).  Nor were the procedures of Article VI Section 2(f)
> > followed.
> >
> > I consider myself to have erred by not recognizing this (particularly as
> > this same question was the topic of my request for reconsideration of
> > November 17, 1999 -
> > http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/auerbach-request-17nov99.htm
> > - and is (was?) pending before the Independent Review panel).
> >
> > Why the resolution was drafted in the way it was - referencing, but not
> > adopting, the DNSO recommendation, and instead substituting a weaker
> > formulation and allowing staff discretion over matters already decided by
> > the DNSO - is a mystery.  But given that the draft resolution appeared
> > less than six hours before the start of the board meeting there was no
> > time to make more than the most cursory of inquiries.
> >
> >               --karl--
> >
> >
> > ARTICLE VI: SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS ...
> >
> > Section 2. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS ...
> >
> > (e) Subject to the provisions of Article III, Section 3, the Board shall
> > accept the recommendations of a Supporting Organization if the Board finds
> > that the recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the
> > best interest of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the Articles and
> > Bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and open processes (including
> > participation by representatives of other Supporting Organizations if
> > requested); and (4) is not reasonably opposed by any other Supporting
> > Organization. ...
> >
> >
> > (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. If, after reasonable
> > efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting
> > Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this
> > Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
> > between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations
> > from Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a
> > justification for prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify
> > and then approve a specific policy recommendation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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