Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:59:02PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> At 01:23 PM 3/12/2001 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >As Dave Crocker pointed out in a separate post, requiring consensus
> >decisions for contract negotiations will not work.  ICANN's only source of
> >power is through contracts.  If they have to wait for a consensus decision
> >on every contract they negotiate, their ability to function will come to a
> >screeching halt.
> [snip]
> 
>          Let me try and parse this, Chuck.
> 
>1. ICANN exercises power only through contracts.
>2. Contracts are not subject to the consensus process.
>3. Therefore, no exercise of ICANN power is subject to the consensus process.
> 
>          Have I got that right?

Most *actual* exercising of power is not subject to a consensus
process, in *any* arena -- when a policeman arrests someone, the
electorate is not making his on-the-spot decisions for him. 

> Certainly, I don't believe that anyone can point to a
> >documented policy with regard to separation of registry and registrar.  As
> >Roberto pointed out in the open forum, he believes that there was an implied
> >policy, but even if that was true, I don't believe that such an implied
> >policy was specifically developed as a consensus policy.  Instead a few
> >individuals simply decided to include such provisions in contracts.
> 
>          "A few individuals"?  I'd expected better from you, Chuck.  Let me 
> quote from <http://www.icann.org/general/agreements.htm>:
> 
> "Policies adopted through the ICANN process are implemented by agreement of 
> entities involved in the operation of the Internet. In some cases, this 
> agreement occurs after the policy is adopted; in other cases the 
> implementation is pre-arranged through written agreements. Some of those 
> agreements are: . . . Agreements Among ICANN, the U.S. Department of 
> Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc. (November 10, 1999)."
> 
> I'll grant you that those agreements (which include the provisions on 
> registrar-registry separation that you are now trying to avoid) were not 
> the product of a process beginning in the Supporting 
> Organizations.  Nonetheless, they were made available by the ICANN Board 
> for public comment, were the subject of extensive debate at a Board 
> meeting, were revised in several respects in light of community reactions, 
> and were finally adopted by the Board when the community was satisfied that 
> -- as revised -- they embodied appropriate policy. 

In fact, the only real policy input from the DNSO in this area came 
from WG-C, and the substance of that policy is that a number of 
different models should be tried.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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