RE: [ga] NC teleconference announcement, September 23rd, 1999

[Ellen Rony <erony@marin.k12.ca.us>]

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>I hope that the Council will come
>up with choices that have also the "popular" support, and that are not
>viewed as the product of an internal choice of the Council "against" the GA.

Originally, the Names Council was only supposed to coordinate the
elections.  Somehow, that transmogrified into the NC voting for the DNSO
representatives to the ICANN board.  Given this new power, the Names
Council should be obliged to mirror the vox populi of the General Assembly.

Now, I wonder why no one has addressed the query posted last week.  If the
bylaws change to make the office of member of the ICANN  Board incompatible
with the the office of Member of the DNSO Names Counci
<http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws-changes-16sept99.htm> is accepted,
what would happen in a worst case scenario if all members of the NC were
nominated for the ICANN board?

They would be required to recuse themselves from the discussion and voting,
but apparently would not be forced to resign, (thus giving them a fall back
involvement after the elections) and NO ONE would be able to select the new
DNSO board representatives.

This wonderful conundrum brought to you from the same folks who delivered
the exension of their terms despite public objection and are now developing
a uniform dispute resolution policy that flies in the face of IFWP
consensus not to do so.

............................................................................
Ellen Rony                         ____             The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author		       ^..^     )6     http://www.domainhandbook.com
+1 (415) 435-5010    	       (oo) -^--                     ISBN 0879305150
Tiburon, CA                        W   W               erony@marin.k12.ca.us
	   DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
............................................................................