Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Friends,
>
> Here is a private discussion among friends.  Both Sandy and I may not publish our every
> word to a list but we are men of our word and of course our words should be published if
> they be of value to others.
>
> Make no mistake Sandy is a friend to all dotcommoners and a fine statesmen for the GA.
> The words are always critical and yet supportive.  I think Danny's position has merit.  We
> must get a little proactive here.
>
> Lets throw this over to sys sub list but everyone cc the main lists.  Sandy you be
> chairman and I'll be your secretary.  Let's do it, what have we got to lose?  Any
> objections?  If not us then who?  By monday afternoon we will be in every relevant media
> outlets' inbox.
>
> Let's rock,
>
> Eric
>
> Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > You sent this off-list, so I'm replying that way. Shouldn't this discussion
> > be on the list? You have my permission to post this if you are so inclined.
> >
> > > Sandy, Friend,
> > >
> > > I am working on your counter position and already note many of your good points.
> > > But rather than just reply could you provide the GA with your own position on these
> > > weighty matters?
> >
> > I've already stated my position in various other posts. Here's the critical part
> > of a rather long post on from the ALSC forum list, my critique of Joe Sims'
> > commemnts on the ALSC report:
> >
> > > In the controversy around Stuart Lynn's recent discussion paper on alternate
> > > roots, ICANN management (quite correctly in my view) claimed that principles
> > > set out in the White Paper and elsewhere were part of ICANN's mandate, and
> > > should be treated as part of existing policy.
> > >
> > > As I see it, the notion of nine At Large directors is another such case.
> > >
> > > See, for example Dyson's 1998 letter assuring IANA of ICANN's excellent
> > > intentions:
> >
> > I blundered there. The letter was to NTIA, not to IANA.
> >
> > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/ICANN111098.htm
> > >
> > > " ... elect the nine At Large Directors. ... the Board has an unconditional
> > >     mandate to create a membership structure that will elect the At Large
> > >     Directors of the Board
> > >
> > > " ... the Board, which will consist of the elected representatives of the
> > >       entire Internet community
> > >
> > > " Esther Dyson
> > > " Interim Chairman
> > > " On Behalf of the ICANN Board
> > >
> > > And the actual Bylaws attached to that letter have, in Article 9:
> > >
> > > " Each Board after the Initial Board shall be comprised as follows:
> > > "
> > > "   (i) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Address Supporting Organization ...
> > > "  (ii) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Domain Name Supporting Organization,...
> > > " (iii) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Protocol Supporting Organization ...
> > > "  (iv) Nine  (9) At Large Directors, ...
> > > "   (v) The ... President of the Corporation.
> > >
> > > This as much a part of the ICANN mandate as the "there can be only one" notion
> > > about roots that Lynn referred to.
> > >
> > > Methinks the mandate for ALSC is in the bylaws, Article 9:
> > >
> > > " (c) At Large Board members ... shall be elected by a process to be determined
> > > " ... Such process shall call for election of At Large directors by one or more
> > > " categories of members of the Corporation ...
> > >
> > > The problem here is to determine how to elect nine directors. To do that, you
> > > likely have to define "members of the Corporation". Ask Auerbach about that :-)
> > >
> > > I don't think the question of reducing the number of At Large directors should
> > > have arisen, either in the ALSC or the on Board. the Board's mandate is to
> > > implement the bylaws, not to subvert them.

--
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