[ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG

[Karl Auerbach]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:

> you are getting weirder and weirder by the minute. If the Board takes up
> input it's wrong too now?

This was an instance when the DNSO actually did its job and came up with a
thoughtful recommendation.  The recommendation by the Names Council may be
seen at: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020205.NCdotorg-to-ICANN.html
And the actual text of the material endorsed by the Names Council may be
seen at: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCdotorg-report.html

ICANN's bylaws obligate the board to follow supporting organization
recommendations unless the board finds that certain conditions exist.

There was, in fact a DNSO recommendation.  And the board did not find that
that recommendation fell short of any of the requirements of Article VI
Section 2(e).  Nor were the procedures of Article VI Section 2(f)  
followed.

I consider myself to have erred by not recognizing this (particularly as
this same question was the topic of my request for reconsideration of
November 17, 1999 -
http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/auerbach-request-17nov99.htm
- and is (was?) pending before the Independent Review panel).

Why the resolution was drafted in the way it was - referencing, but not
adopting, the DNSO recommendation, and instead substituting a weaker
formulation and allowing staff discretion over matters already decided by
the DNSO - is a mystery.  But given that the draft resolution appeared
less than six hours before the start of the board meeting there was no
time to make more than the most cursory of inquiries.

		--karl--


ARTICLE VI: SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS ... 

Section 2. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS ...

(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. ...


(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.