[ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG - And linkage to ICANN Reform/Restructure

Thu Apr 4 03:03:59 CEST 2002

Richard dba J W,

ah, the lovely language of threats, their perfumed smell, their delicious
taste.

Replay the video of the Accra meeting where we touched on the subject of
threats. It's neat.

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
** 10 Aniversario de Internet Society - www.inet2002.org en Washington, DC
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
 Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Alejandro and all,
>
>   You are quite right as to Eric's interest in getting things moving
> quickly on the reform/restructering track.  I was the one that suggested
> that be a separate thread.  None the less as you mention these areas
> ( .ORG boD decision and Reform/Restructuring of ICANN ) do indeed
> converge on several levels.  Therefore it would seem appropriate
> fro the time being to just change the subject line of this thread
> to indicate such, which I am doing in this response for purposes
> of clarity and understanding.
>
>   As Karl pointed out as far as DNSO restructuring with respect to
> the BOD decision and .ORG, it would seems that in this particular area
> unless o until that restructuring and especially Reform of the ICANN
> BoD and staff has been effected, the .ORG BOD decision is in violation
> of the ICANN Bylaws as they stand now.  Ergo, such a decision
> requires either a rethink and redo, or disciplinary action of the BOD
> members voting in favor of this .ORG decision in departure of the
> DNSO TF recommendation's.  In the likely event that such disciplinary
> action against those BOD members is not taken, it would than seem
> wise for the BOD to seriously reconsider it's decision or perhaps
> face other legal action if failing to do so...
>
> Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:
>
> > Dear Karl,
> >
> > the Board resolution and the discussion which the staff is instructed to
> > take into account for the RFP contain and extend the DNSO recommendation,
> > some of the minority opinions expressed through the process within the
> > DNSO, and some precautions which were not even outlined then.
> >
> > One of them addresses a concern expressed in the last few hours by Adam
> > Peake, viz that a company interested in the business of .org set up a
> > "front" organization. Only a couple of the efforts of this kind have been
> > mentioned explicitly here. Some NCDNHC participants have been part of
> > efforts to set up .org steering organizations with known business backing;
> > others have the suspicion expressed by Adam.
> >
> > As Milton has implied, a number of points in this conversation have begun
> > to converge. Doubtless it would be useful to concentrate an effort in the
> > reform process. As someone else has written that is, of course, a separate
> > track, and as Eric has underlined, one to move on ASAP.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Alejandro Pisanty
> >
> > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> >      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> > Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
> > UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
> > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> > Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
> > http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
> > *
> > ** 10 Aniversario de Internet Society - www.inet2002.org en Washington, DC
> > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
> >  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
> > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>