[ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can ask substantive questions

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I am confused about the angst here... it appears at least one or two of
these items posted by ICANN will be just reports.  But the larger items, the
TLDs and the Verisign/NSI contract are posted, I believe, not as action
items, but so they can be discussed, and public (and written comments)
taken.  The Verisign/NSI contract isn't a policy issue, per se, as far as I
can tell, although the implications of the outcome are important for the
Internet stakeholders/community.   Which is why it is posted.  

Look, I feel a little overburdened by the reading, which I don't expect to
be "light". But ICANN, and all of us are trying to do our best. And these
documents are obviously complicated, and take time.  

I am sure that when I read all the materials, I will have questions. I am
likely to not like some portions, but I think it more important to focus on
reviewing ourselves, and discussing, and asking questions during the periods
such as the GA, the public forum, so that more informed and constructive
feedback can be provided.

I recommend that the priority be ensuring, in a civil and organized manner,
that there is ample opportunity, in the GA, in the public forum, and if
possible/OR useful, in the Constituencies, to hear a short summary of the
status, and ask questions, related to both the TLDs and the Verisign/NSI
contract.  I think that is what is proposed.

Or, again, I could be missing something.




-----Original Message-----
From: JandL [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:18 AM
To: david@farrar.com; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy


What is really sick - the Board should not be able to push through 
items of this import without consultation of the DNSO.  The fact 
that they have changed by-laws to make the corporation 
omnipotant is where much of the problem lies.  There should be no 
secret negotiations and all board members should be party to any 
such negotiations.  The SO's should always be informed and 
consulted.  If decisions have to be delayed as a result, so be it.  
There is absolutely no reason for this to be approved in two weeks.

> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:17:05PM +0000, david@farrar.com wrote:
> 
> > > (c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not
> > > received 
> from 
> > > a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any,
> > > with 
> primary 
> > > responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for
> > > initial consideration and recommendation to the Board."
> > 
> > You left out section (g):
> > 
> >     (g) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION 2 IS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF
> >     THE BOARD OR THE CORPORATION act on matters not within the scope
> >     of primary responsibility of a Supporting Organization or TO
> >     TAKE ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD FINDS ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE
> >     TO FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF THE CORPORATION. 
> >         [Emphasis added]
> > 
> > If something of a timely and important nature comes up, the board to
> > fully empowered to act. 
> 
> Oh I agree that from a strictly legal point of view there is no way to
> stop the Board.  But my appeal is to look at the importance of the
> issues and for them not to use what is almost an emergency power to
> bypass the proper policy making/consensus channel of the DNSO.  If the
> DNSO is ignored on this issue then to be honest it might as well pack
> its bags and go home - its only role will be to elect a Board member
> every year.
> 
> The effects of these decisions will be with us for 7 - 10 years.  That
> is worth consulting properly on, especially as the proposed changes
> have come out of thin air - i doubt anyone not on the Board or with
> NSI even knew there wre negiotations happening.  I do not have a
> problem that the staff have negiotated a draft (even though it would
> have been nice to seek guidance from Names Council or initial points
> of principle rathwer than present a fait accomplit) but I would have a
> problem if the DNSO is not given adequate time to consider the issues
> and for them to be the body which recommends the adoption ro
> otherwise.
> 
> > > There is little doubt that the proposed changes to the Verisign
> > > agreements represent major policy changes.  They propose to change
> > > the policy that eventually the registry and registrars for *.com
> > > must not have the same owners, they also look at changing the
> > > nature of *.org.  It does not get much bigger or wide ranging than
> > > this. 
> > > 
> > > I first note that the DNSO did not originate the proposed policy
> > > change and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion at all
> > > about this within the DNSO.
> > 
> > No surprise there.  The DNSO doesn't originate anything.
> 
> Unfortunately not.  However if perhaps the staff had mentioned that it
> is considered desirable to renegiotate the DNSO could have given some
> guidance as to what is seen as priority areas to concentrate on.
> 
> > > But more importantly the bylaws are absolutely clear that the
> > > Board *must* refer these proposals to the DNSO which shall
> > > initially consider them and recommend for or against them to the
> > > Board.  Clauses (e) and (f) make it clear that the Board should
> > > not adopt any policy change unless the SO has recommended it
> > > (unless it has been referred back to SO at least once)
> > 
> > Clause (g) makes it clear that the board can act regardless of
> > clauses (e) and (f).
> 
> Again yes they *can* act but I contend they *should* not act until it
> has been referred to the DNSO and the Names Council is satisfied it
> have consulted enough to be able to recommend a consenus opinion to
> the Board.
> 
> DPF
> 
> 
> --
> 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


--
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
--
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