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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 01:04:13PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> 
> > That is, a committee composed only of NC members can rewrite 
> > anything.  A committee of the *whole* NC can rewrite anything, or come 
> > up with something from scratch.  The idea that the NC "can't change 
> > a single comma" is a pure fantasy.
> 
> You forget that the "consensus" that the NC must discover is based on
> something more than themselves.

Karl, I haven't forgotten anything.  I am just refuting the utter
nonsense you have been spreading that the NC "can't change a single
comma". 

> They are obligated to look at all
> elements.  Thus if they try to usurp the system by forming their own
> captive drafting committee to twart a consensus, they will be quite
> clearly showing that they are working in directy opposition to their
> obligation to recognize all the sources of opinion.

And if that happens, it is the responsibility of the ICANN Board to 
note the objections.  The GA has no bylaws-derived power in this 
matter at all.  The responsibility lies in the NC, not the GA.

The populist oversight in this structure comes from the members of 
ICANN, not the GA.

> As is very clear from the bylaws the NC is merely there to measure whether
> a consensus exists, not to create or fabricate one of their own liking.

No, it's not clear at all, and furthermore, it is completely
immaterial to the question at hand.  We are discussing the
relationship between WGs of the GA and the NC.  The GA does *not*
have oversight over the NC; the ICANN Board does, and of course the
constituencies do to some extent through the fact that they elect the
NC. But the GA is not a legislative body, and the opinion gathered 
through the mechanisms of the GA are not the only ones that need to 
be considered.

> > The intent of the GA was that they have influence through their 
> > EXPERTISE
> 
> I'm glad to hear you say it -- that the NC has no institutional expertise.

Don't be silly -- I didn't say that at all.

> Of course, we keep hearing statements how this this non-expert NC must
> have unlimited power to rewrite and overturn the work product, the
> consensus work product I might add, of the experts gathered in the GA.

Indeed, the NC DOES have the ability to overturn and rewrite the work
product of a GA WG, and it is NECESSARY that it have that power.  It
is perfectly possible that a WG could produce a result that was
completely unacceptable to the constituencies -- the structure as
currently operating does allow for insane WGs.  Further, the NC is
*explicitly* given that power in the bylaws:

  Any proposed recommendation that is not supported by an affirmative
  vote of one-half (1/2) of the members of the NC may be returned to
  the body from which it originated, or may be assigned to a new
  body, for further work. 

Note that there are *no* particular limitations on the character of
that "new body" -- it could be the NC itself. 

This is absolutely necessary as a check against an insane WG.  The
check against an insane NC are 1) elections and 2) the ICANN Board;
the checks against an insane ICANN Board are 1) elections, 2)
anti-trust laws, and 3) contract law.

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