RE: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Re: Policy. By-Laws Mandate

I agree with that part fully, Karl. One problem to date has been lack of
substantive, in depth policy statement "output" from the DNSO.

I'll do my part to increase the quanmtity and quality of that output.

peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:37 PM
To: Jefsey Morfin
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC,
TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections



> You certainly realize that what you say calls for a lot of comments
> and leads to the dissolution of the ICANN. So I prefer to cross check
> with you first.

The existing ICANN bylaws mandate - the word "shall" is used" - that the
Board of Directors shall accept the policy decisions of the DNSO unless
certain very limited conditions exist or the board makes a specific
finding that there is some overriding need.

Take a look at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI particularly at
Section 2 and all of its subsections.

In other words, under the existing ICANN bylaws, the DNSO *is* the
authority for DNS policy.


> >Actually I prefer the word "decisions".  I'd like to be able to sit in my
> >comfy board-of-directors chair and ask only whether the DNSO policy
> >decision was reached via well defined processes in which every who wants
> >to participate had the opportunity to do so on par with everyone else.
>
> We may read the things in two ways:
..
> - or you actually want to say that the DNSO (a non exclusive consulting
>    group) would actually conduct the ICANN policy and the BoD would
>    only check if it performed properly. In other words, the entire DNS
>    policy would be the responsibility of Ken Stubbs.

Yup.  As long as the DNSO operates so that everybody who is interested in
participating has the opportunity to do so and if the procedures are fair
and we can measure the degree of agreement by something better than
uncounted humms then yes indeed the board ought to accept it absent some
very strong counterveiling concerns.

In your description however, you seem to say that Ken S. would establish
the DNSO policy.  That situation would not be in accord with the
requirement that such policy be created by the fair interaction of all
interested parties.


> >For the most part, I'd prefer it if the board rarely, if ever, exercised
> >its power to make DNS policy but rather left it up to well run ICANN
> >public policymaking processes.
>
> That you prefer the world to be so smooth you do not have to exercise
> your power and you may rely on NC generalities as perfect policy
> statements is pure Utopia but does not removes the power of decision
> from the BoD.

You seem to expect more wisdom from the board of directors than from the
DNSO.  Don't.

Better to fix the DNSO than to rely on the board of directors to correct
ill-DNSO decisions.


> >Of course, if one reads the ICANN bylaws as they exist today that is what
> >they very clearly say - but as we have seen from the rejection of my
> >"request for reconsideration" on that point, ICANN's official policy
makes
> >that bylaw language nothing more than meaningless surplussage.
>
> I am not clear if you want to say the existing bylaws say what you say
> or what I say? (from my reading, they say what I say, but that seems to
> contradict the rest of your phrase?) could you clarify please?

The existing bylaws are very, very explicit about the obligation of the
board to accept the ouput from the supporting organizations.  Those
sections of the bylaws are, however, ignorred in practice.

> PS. I wish also to underline a few constitutional oriented aspects:
>
> 1. The @large Study Group which is to be a parallel effort

No it isn't.  The at-large is a matter distinct from DNSO reform and to
mix the two is to damage both efforts.


>      You seem to want drastic changes.

Following the existing bylaws with regard to the adoption of DNSO policy
by the board is not drastic.

Getting rid of rotten burough "constituencies" that give voting rights,
often multiple voting rights, to special groups is not drastic.

Creating structures that allow people to form coalitions with those they
believe have a common point of view on an issue is not drastic.

Having procedures through which all who are interested may have rational
organized discussions is not drastic.

Allowing any member to call for a counted vote whenever that memeber
disagrees with the chair's assessment is not drastic.

Retention of the status quo - that is drastic.

	--karl--


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html