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

[Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>]

I was just about to send a note on exactly the same point.

Giving the DNSO responsibility for DNS policy then taking that
responsibilty away is not helpful.  The board should be required to consult
the DNSO (and other SOs) on any issue relevant to its (their) area of
competence. If the DNSO (or other SOs) then fails to act, there should be
some clause that cuts in and allows the Board to take some unilateral
action.  But the default should be for the SO to be consulted on any
relevant matter.

As we've seen since Yokohama the Board has not sought DNSO advice on new
TLD applications and creation, surely "policy issues relating to the Domain
Name System" if ever there were such.  I'd like to believe the TLD
application process might have been helped by DNSO participation.

Thanks,

Adam Peake
GLOCOM  Tokyo
<http://www.glocom.org> <http://www.glocom.ac.jp>


>It is clear in sections:
>
>"Under Article VI Section 2(c) of the ICANN bylaws, the ICANN board is
>obligated to refer to the Domain Name Supporting Organization those
>proposals 'not received from a Supporting Organization' and which pertain to
>the domain name system."
>
>While this accurately states the general tenor of Section 2(c), it fails to
>note the effect of Article VI, Section 2(g):
>
>"Nothing in this Section 2 is intended to limit the powers of the Board or
>the Corporation to act on matters not within the scope of primary
>responsibility of a Supporting  Organization or to take actions that the
>Board finds are necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of the
>Corporation."
>
>
>that ICANN (staff and board) can do ANYTHING it wants WITHOUT DNSO
>involvement.
>
>Unless and until that (section) is changed, well, status quo...
>
>peter de Blanc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
>Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 1:51 AM
>To: Jefsey Morfin; wg-review@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC,
>TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections
>
>
>
>> We have an obvious important disagreement in reading the bylaws,
>> which in fact leads you yourself to oppose what you want.
>>
>> Frankly, I do not understand .:-) !!!
>
>Take a look at http://www.cavebear.com/icann/irc.htm and the various links
>it contains.
>
>		--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



--
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