[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG

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

Karl and all,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> It is true that the DSNO recommendations were mentioned during the board's
> discussion.  And the resolution does in fact reference the DNSO
> recommendation in a "Whereas" clause.
>
> But the resolution does not actually adopt the DNSO recommendation nor
> does it actually bind the "staff" to adhere to the DNSO recommendation.

  Yes, and here lies the crux of the problem with the lack of understanding
that some members of the BoD and staff have with the bylaws.

>
>
> I used to have an old Jeep.  Its steering gear was worn to the point
> where the driver had a good quarter a turn of play in the steering wheel
> before the tires would change direction.  This Jeep would go down the
> highway like a drunken sailor.
>
> I consider this resolution to be a lot like my old Jeep - in both cases
> the driver and the Board of Directors give directions.  And in both cases,
> the actual track taken is rather up to chance.  If my Jeep and I should
> happen to crash, the blame should not fall on the steering, but on me, the
> driver, for not repairing the slack in the gear.  Similarly, if staff
> enters into an agreement that differs from the DNSO recommendations, the
> fault is not staff but rather upon us, the Board, for failing to clearly
> mandate our intentions.

  True the ICANN staff is not at fault here.  If any BoD does not make
such decisions in a clear and concise manner than they are failing in their
duty's to that extent.  As such a need for the BoD to either listen to
the stakeholders more readily and more closely, as well as the DNSO
in this instance, is clearly needed.  The only other possibility is that
the BoD intentionally not listening closely and intently on purpose.

>
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm not really following that sequence of events.  I personally don't
> agree with the DNSO report that says that a non-profit has to run .org - I
> think that for-profits can do a decent job - but the issue here isn't
> that, but rather, the role of the DNSO.
>
> It does seem that Article VI Section 2 of the bylaws is in need of
> considerable revision to reflect the actual relationship of the SO's to
> the Board as it actually exists in practice.
>
> I personally don't like the SO structure (and much less the DNSO's
> constituency structure) and would not be sad to see them fade into the
> sunset.  However, such changes would be neither conservative nor
> incremental, thus raising the question of how broad a brush, or perhaps a
> heavier metaphor, how big a hammer, is to be used to restructure ICANN?

  I personally think as many of our members have stated to me on
a number of occasions, that a need to replace a majority of the Board
has been necessary or paramount for some time now.  So perhaps your
metaphor of how big a hammer is the better one.

>
>
>                 --karl--
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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