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

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Thank you for your response.  The debate yesterday regarding adhesion contracts
and registrars and TMs would be a point of argument regarding being very careful
not to violate.  Microsofts failed defense of the justice departments attack upon
it would be another point of argument here.  And I think we could agree that ICANN
is not in competition with anyone, although the alternative root servers may argue
this point.

So it would appear that while coming from different angles we agree that a larger
constituent base would be a very good idea for ICANN, assuming that we are trying
to fix the structure as opposed to replacing it.

Looking again at the organizational chart I think several more constituencies
would not hurt at all.  Once again this could be done simply by creating interest
blocks in the GA and increasing the percentage of directors flowing therefrom.

This has to be done in conjunction with Ms. Merry's suggestions which will
increase the participation level, of Ms. Oppenheimers 85%, a clear majority above
the 67% as set forth in the metamorphising definition of consensus.

So moving in this direction we are formulating Charter corrections even while
working within the existing charter. Please heed the intelligence of the recent
suggestion not to get bogged down in semantics, I do not stand by any rigid
definition at this point.

Sincerely,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:09:15AM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > Mr. Crispin,
> > This is a very nice insight into the truth of the monopoly matter.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >  But it is
> > also true that it will only continue to exist if it does not cause a problem
> > that anti-trust laws are designed to prohibit.
>
> Quite true.
>
> > ICANN is doing that right now
>
> No, it's not.  If there is anything that ICANN has been very careful
> about, it is avoiding antitrust.  It has been, as I said, a primary
> concern from the very beginning.
>
> > and if it does not get fixed from the inside I am certain it will get fixed
> > from the outside. So we had better get busy and get the people or entities
> > affected by ICANN into the decision making process.
>
> In general, getting affected entities involved in the decision making
> process is not at all necessary to avoid anti-trust.  For example, we
> don't deal with Microsoft by holding at large elections for the board of
> directors of Microsoft.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard