RE: [wg-review] DNSO recommendations

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:sandy@storm.ca]
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 10:28 AM
> 
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
> > The DNSO model I support is rather simple and not
> > so different from the existing one - once the voting
> > aspects have been changed.
> > 
> > 1. The DNSO is to be a Consultant to the BoD on DN issues.
> 
> My understanding is that the current bylaws make the DNSO the
> body with primary responsibility for making policy in this area.
>           ****************************************

to quote from the ICANN Bylaws....
-----
Section 2. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS

(b) The Supporting Organizations shall serve as advisory bodies to the
Board, with the primary responsibility for developing and recommending
substantive policies regarding those matters falling within their specific
responsibilities, as described in this Article VI (including VI-A, VI-B and
VI-C).

(e) Subject to the provisions of Article III, Section 3, the Board shall
accept the recommendations of a Supporting Organization if the Board finds
that the recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best
interest of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the Articles and
Bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and open processes (including
participation by representatives of other Supporting Organizations if
requested); and (4) is not reasonably opposed by any other Supporting
Organization. No recommendation of a Supporting Organization shall be
adopted unless the votes in favor of adoption would be sufficient for
adoption by the Board without taking account of either the Directors
selected by the Supporting Organization or their votes.

(f) If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of a Supporting
Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the Supporting
Organization for further consideration, along with a statement of the
reasons it declines to accept the recommendation. If, after reasonable
efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting
Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this
Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations from
Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a justification for
prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify and then approve a
specific policy recommendation.

(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.
----

One really has to look at the whole thing.

> > Only DN holders should be allowed as members.
> 
> Absurd.

Not so absurd. Otherwise, what is the distinction between the @large and the
DNSO?

> Many people other than domain holders have an interest in seeing
> the system work well.
>  
> Granted, if there's a constituency structure then domain name
> holders must have a constituency. Methinks the public interest
> groups -- EFF et al -- should have one too, and those two
> constituencies together should have a majority of NC votes.

I submit that those groups would rather have more direct access to the BoD.
--
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