[ncdnhc-discuss] FYI

[Marc Schneiders]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, at 16:18 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:

> I am cc'ing this to Louis Touton, General Counsel of ICANN, and I am
> asking that he investigate this situation and give us an opinion.  I
> believe that the "policy" that Milton discusses below is basically
> incoherent, pernicious, and, to the extent that it makes any sense,
> explicitly contrary to the ICANN bylaws.

Which version? They change so often when it suits 'them'.

> Moreover, Milton's actions in
> this case and in the earlier case involving Dave Crocker and SVPAL look
> very much like personal vendettas that seriously call to question his
> suitability as a representative of the NCC on the Names Council.  That
> the NCC would condone such behavior calls to question its viability as a
> representative of non-commercial interests in ICANN.

Great, if you cannot vote in it, the whole constituency has to go, right?
Yes, why not. If 'they' van abolish at large board seats, why not a
constituency?

>     Then the charter has be revised earlier in 2000, by a subgroup lead
>     by Raul Echebarria.  This revised version was not approved by ICANN,
>     because the point concerning alternates was not considered as
>     consistent with ICANN by-laws.
>
>     A second revision has been worked out by another subgroup.  The last
>     version is in date of September 21st, 2000.  This version did not
>     receive any comment from the constituency.  It has been submitted
>     also to ICANN for approval.  ICANN did not comment it so far.

ICANN always does not comment when something difficult comes up. It does
not comment on complaints about accredited registrars that haven't even
got their dns working and no whois in place. I'd like to hear the opinion
of ICANN's general counsel on that.