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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 09:49:05AM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> 
> > Read the bylaws. The NC is a decision making entity, it can send to the
> > Board whatever proposal is feels like.
> 
> Nope.  I read the bylaws.
> 
> They say: "The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus
> building process of the DNSO."  Indeed the next sentence in the
> by-laws indicates that "the substantive work of the DNSO" shall be
> carried out by groups other than the NC.

The NC is perfectly able to define a committee of the NC to redraft
anything it pleases.  The first interation of this WG was such a
committee.  There is no restriction as to where the committee members
may come, except that there be representation from each constituency. 
Since the NC by definition has representation from each constituency, 
of course a drafting subcommittee of the NC can be chartered.
[...]

> Nope.  If a WG says "DNS policy is X" the NC is obliged to accept if
> if a consensus exists among the GA.

The NC is to facilitate finding consensus in the *DNSO*, not the GA.  
The constituencies are part of the DNSO.  A WG of the GA can propose 
something, and the NC can charter a drafting committee from the 
constituencies to rewrite it.  

[...]

> > The role of this WG is to develop procedures within the bylaws, not to try
> > to change them or change their meaning.
> 
> The WG's are free to interpret the by-laws and to petition ICANN's
> board to make adjustments as necessary.

As are the constituencies.  The constituencies collectively represent 
a very large cross-section of the Internet community -- *very* much 
more than the GA's 130 members represent.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain