Re: [ga] General Counsel vs. DNSO

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:47:50 EDT, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

>Has General Counsel now usurped the role of the DNSO as a policy advisory?  
>Is this second "analysis" that has been put forth strictly in keeping with 
>the role of a legal counsel, or has it "crossed the line" to the detriment of 
>the DNSO?  What legal issues are implicated now that weren't already present 
>after the first such analysis that mandated this new "analysis" from Counsel? 
> I don't see any.  

I think it has been apparent ever since the time ICANN allowed
Verisign to remain both a registrar and registry that the Board takes
the advice of its staff over any of its constituent parts (except
maybe the GAC).

I have never come across a Board which so slavishly follows the staff
advice.  The Boards I have served on quite often send staff
recommendations back if they are not comfortable with them.  You don't
want this happening all the time but one has to ask what it means when
a the vast majority of the Board vote in favour of the staff's
recommendation each and every time without exception, even when it
goes against their official advisory bodies.

There seem to me to be two possible explanations.

1) The ICANN staff are the best in the known world, are never wrong,
and the Board would be wrong to ever disagree with them.

2) The Board (or most of its members) have totally failed to apply
independent judgement, and abdicate their governance responsibilities.
One has to ask in this case why actually have a Board?  What
particular value do they add?

DPF

PS - I think once the Board may have amended a staff rec relating to
having a WIPO rep on some cmte, but the principle still stands
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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