----- Forwarded message from Stephan Welzel/Denic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.2 June 01, 2004
From: Stephan Welzel/Denic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:31:15 +0100
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Nigel Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] [centr-ga] Question on Accountability Frameworks
Hi Eberhard,
Well, according to the ccNSO Rules I just learnt about, it was the fact
that there were no objections moved it from "INTERIM" to "CAST IN STONE"
status ;)
In fact, this seems to be a recurring problem: While I (and apparently you
as well) would like to see explicit votes with explicit majorities in
favour to pass something, ICANN and some ccNSO members seem to prefer
rules according to which something is passed unless there are objections.
The difference, of course, is that under the latter system silence equals
consent - albeit we all know that being silent oftentimes means simply not
having dealt with the issue rather than consenting.
Best,
Stephan
Dr Eberhard Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 17.01.2006 05:25:28:
> Stephan,
>
> It was already a difficult task to convince the Chris (who was not the
> leader of the task force) to even get the members of the task force to
> vote on whether to submit the *INTERIM* report, he preferred to no
> objection mode. Not all members even voted.
>
> I am unaware of any finalization, as the report is clearly interim *AND*
> even carries a few comments saying that it needs further discussion.
>
> ICANN management has indicated to me, when I submitted language that
> they would like to wait for the guidelines, so I assume I can now
resubmit.
>
>
> And I was soooo looking forward to another face to face in New Zealand
> where we could finalize this. But it *DOES* do wonders to my trust in
> Chris and the ccNSO.
>
> grettings, el
> --
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> PO Box 8421 \ / Please send DNS/NA-NiC related e-mail
> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> on 1/17/06 12:43 AM Nigel Roberts said the following:
> > In order to answer this question, one would need to have an answer to
> > the question: "What are ICANN's powers, and whence do they arise",
> > wouldn't one. This is a question that has been studiously avoided
since
> > Louis Touton's day.
> >
> > If I was to guess, I would say that the Guidelines are nothing more
than
> > concessions by ccNSO members towards future contractual negotiations.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nigel
> > --
> > Nigel Roberts
> >
> > Stephan Welzel/Denic wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I have a question on the Accountability Frameworks Guidelines and
> >> assume that mainly the ccNSO members among you will be able to answer
it:
> >>
> >> At http://www.ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06jan06.html
> >> ICANN states:
> >>
> >> "On 14 December 2005, the ccNSO Council resolved to publish the
> >> Accountability Framework Working Group Interim Report as guidelines
> >> for ccTLD managers to consider when discussing an accountability
> >> framework with ICANN. On 19 December 2005, the Council published the
> >> resolution to the ccNSO members list and as seven days has lapsed
> >> since this publication without objection the guidelines are now
> >> operational."
> >>
> >> Can anyone explain to me
> >>
> >> 1. what the statement is supposed to mean that the guidelines are now
> >> "operational"?
> >> 2. what kind of procedure it is according to which something becomes
> >> "operational" if not objected to?
> >> 3. in what bylaws, guidelines, documents, whatever this procedure is
> >> outlined?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> Stephan
> >>
----- End forwarded message -----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untuk unsubscribe: kirim e-mail ke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dengan Subject: unsubscribe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
