[ga] If "the Board" decides that .DE will be moved under .EU....Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>]

If "the Board" decides that .DE will be moved under .EU, do all of the .DE (Delaware) owners have no say ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephan Welzel/Denic" <welzel@denic.de>
To: "Richard Francis" <rfrancis@igovernance-consultants.com>
Cc: <africann@lists.gh>; <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>; <ga@centr.org>; <legal@centr.org>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....


> 
> Richard,
> 
> On 15.06.2003 13:55 Richard Francis <rfrancis@igovernance-consultants.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Some work for the CENTR L&R Advisory Group and lawyer colleagues in the
> > other candidate ICANN Regional Organisations ?
> > ICANN community then,  in the next 7 days, to review the bylaws ?
> 
> Indeed - albeit I assume it's work that can't be
> done in advance of the Montreal meeting anymore...
> 
> > How do you read Annex B: clause 15 subsection 5, (see below) below
> 
> At first sight, this section in itself seems rather
> clear to me: The General Counsel gives an opinion as
> to whether the concerned issue is within the scope
> of the ccSO. However, this opinion does not affect
> the evolvement of the PDP, even if it was negative.
> Only at the very end of the PDP, through clause 15,
> does the General Counsel's opinion become significant:
> If the board does not accept a recommendation on an
> issue that, according to the General Counsel's
> opinion falls within the ccSO's scope, the board
> cannot set any policy on this issue. If, however, the
> board does not accept a recommendation an an issue
> that, according to the General Counsel's opinion lies
> not within the ccSO's scope the board is free to set
> its own policy in this regard. Basically, this means
> that the General Counsel decides how far the board's
> competence reaches.
> 
> In general, this highlights the most important problem
> of the draft bylaws: E contrario clause 15 means that
> the board can set policies concerning ccTLDs without
> following ccTLD recommendations (or even in the absence
> of such recommendations) with regard to any issue that
> is not within the ccSO's scope. In other words: Our aim
> that policies affecting ccTLDs cannot be set without
> having gone through the ccSO is not being reached.
> 
> BEsides, I see another worrisome issue: Section 6
> paragrapgh 2 of the bylaws states that the ccSO's
> _scope_ will be developed by the ccSO. Amazingly enough,
> it is then, as would have to be expected, not stated
> that such _scope_ of the ccSO will initially be as
> Annex C describes, but that "the _framework_ for the
> scope" will initially be as described there. This means
> that the scope will not be clearly and narrowly defined
> from the beginning on.
> 
> Best,
> Stephan
> 
> 
> 

--
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