RE: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:17:05PM +0000, david@farrar.com wrote:
> > 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).
>


Roberto Gaetano wrote:_
I'll buy that, the board can act regardless clauses etc...
I think it would be interesting to check the audience on whether it would be
good to do so.

I'm not arguing with either part, I'm just trying to move from the legalese
to the pragmatic, and ask whether a feedback from the DNSO community would
be a *good thing*.
Then, of course, the board will decide. But I would not pass on the chance
to give the opinion.

Whatever that may be.


Roberto,
Please don't take this as a personal attack, but "sitting on the fence"
strikes me as an extraordinarily weak position for somebody who is viewed as
the only representative to the NC of those GA Members who are currently
excluded from existing constituencies.

Question: Shouldn't the (new) GA Chair be tearing down the walls? Why should
it be necessary to condone the use of loopholes in the Bylaws to justify
access to ICANN at the highest levels?
Question: If there was no intention in the Bylaws for the BoD to refer
proposals to DNSO, why was the DNSO created?

Regards,
Joanna



--
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