[ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG

[Karl Auerbach]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:

> 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.

It is true that the DSNO recommendations were mentioned during the board's
discussion.  And the resolution does in fact reference the DNSO
recommendation in a "Whereas" clause.

But the resolution does not actually adopt the DNSO recommendation nor
does it actually bind the "staff" to adhere to the DNSO recommendation.  

I used to have an old Jeep.  Its steering gear was worn to the point
where the driver had a good quarter a turn of play in the steering wheel
before the tires would change direction.  This Jeep would go down the 
highway like a drunken sailor.

I consider this resolution to be a lot like my old Jeep - in both cases
the driver and the Board of Directors give directions.  And in both cases,
the actual track taken is rather up to chance.  If my Jeep and I should
happen to crash, the blame should not fall on the steering, but on me, the
driver, for not repairing the slack in the gear.  Similarly, if staff
enters into an agreement that differs from the DNSO recommendations, the
fault is not staff but rather upon us, the Board, for failing to clearly
mandate our intentions.


> 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.

I'm not really following that sequence of events.  I personally don't 
agree with the DNSO report that says that a non-profit has to run .org - I 
think that for-profits can do a decent job - but the issue here isn't 
that, but rather, the role of the DNSO.

It does seem that Article VI Section 2 of the bylaws is in need of
considerable revision to reflect the actual relationship of the SO's to
the Board as it actually exists in practice.

I personally don't like the SO structure (and much less the DNSO's
constituency structure) and would not be sad to see them fade into the
sunset.  However, such changes would be neither conservative nor
incremental, thus raising the question of how broad a brush, or perhaps a
heavier metaphor, how big a hammer, is to be used to restructure ICANN?

		--karl--