Re: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - Revised Agenda

[Javier <javier@aui.es>]

Karl,

Read the bylaws. The NC is a decision making entity, it can send to the
Board whatever proposal is feels like. It can alter anything its wants, it
can tell a WG that its results are of no interest whatsoever. The NC
represents the Internet Community proportionally, the GA doesn't, that is
why the GA does not vote. 

The role of this WG is to develop procedures within the bylaws, not to try
to change them or change their meaning.

Javier

At 23:03 11/08/99 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> However, the bylaws state that nomination procedures will be 
>> developed by the NC, and must be approved by the board:
>
>Nope, it says "adopted by the NC"; it does not say "developed by the NC".
>The difference is significant because the NC has no powers in itself to
>write anything, it can only ask for groups to develop it and the NC can
>only determine whether there is a consensus.  The NC can't even change a
>spelling error.
>
>
>>   (d) The GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC
>>   and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those
>>   seats reserved for the DNSO.
>
>> Therefore, the obvious thing to do is to charter a working group to 
>> develop those procedures...
>
>This is that working group.
>
>
>> > But all of this assumes that the GA has a mechanism for deciding what
the 
>> > nomination mechanism will be.
>> 
>> The mechanism for deciding policy is to form WGs or drafting or 
>> research committees, and have the NC vote on the result.  A further 
>> step is required in this case -- the ICANN Board has to approve the 
>> result. 
>
>Nope, the sole role of the Names Council over GA and WG output is whether
>it represents a "consensus".  That's it.  The NC can't even touch the
>language.
>
>		--karl--
>