[wg-review] Names Council Vote?

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

On 11 March 2001 the Names Council of the DNSO adopted a resolution that
reads:

1. The new proposed Verisign-NSI/ICANN Agreement published last week
represents a substantive policy change and involves a fundamental shift in
the structure of competition. The proposed change comes as a surprise and is
a source of significant concern to many stakeholders.
2. Such a change would require careful consideration by the DNSO
constituencies and the Internet community. It cannot be considered except in
accordance with due process allowing a reasonable time for the
constituencies to consider and comment on the proposed changes.
3. The ICANN Board should not be precipitated into any decision until full
consideration has been given to this issue in accordance with ICANN's
procedures.

With this resolution, the proposed agreement is defined by the Names Council
as a policy consideration subject to consensus procedures within the purview
of the DNSO.

What then is a "Consensus Policy"?   By ICANN definition:

A "Consensus Policy" is one adopted by ICANN as follows:
1. "Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus among
Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by
(1) the adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a
recommendation that the policy should be adopted, by at least a two-thirds
vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter
is delegated, and (3) a written report and supporting materials (which must
include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating
to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement
among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to
achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be
impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support
and opposition to the proposed policy.
http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm

We have now received the formal request for a written report, a de facto
delegation to the DNSO.  The ICANN Board on 14 March 2001 responded to the
Names Council resolution (via Louis Touton) with a specific request for
comments on the substantive merits of the proposed agreement
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00014.html

As a report will be forthcoming, and as adoption of the proposed agreement
by the Board is a virtual certainty, the only remaining consideration is
point #2, the requisite two-thirds vote of the Names Council to sanctify
this new proposal as a consensus-based policy decision.

It is my hope that the Names Council has the courage to bring this to a
vote, and to vote against the adoption of this agreement.

Best regards,
Danny Younger







--
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