Michael and all,
Good points raised yet again here Michael. And precisely to the point
as well. These same points that your raise also apply to the actions
recently independently taken by the ICANN INterim Board as well.
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Kent Crispin a �crit:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:39:55PM -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> > >
> > > The wording above clearly states that decisions will be arrived at in the
> > > NC, by its consensus, rather than by a consensus of the membership. And the
> > > only mechanism stated for "remanding" decisions to the membership is in the
> > > case where the NC can't come to a consensus. I don't know what other wording
> > > you've put into the draft at this point, but with the wording above you
> > > allow the NC to make decisions for the DNSO, which was almost unanimously
> > > rejected by the participants at Washington.
> >
> > Nope. That is not what it says, and that is not what it means. You
> > apparently think that "decisions of the NC" are the same as
> > "decisions of the DNSO". They are two different things, and the
> > draft language does *not* equate them. Their relationship is
> > precisely the question at issue, in fact.
> >
> > There is no question that the NC will make decisions that do not
> > involve the DNSO as a whole -- for example, they will decide when to
> > adjourn their meetings, or when to take coffee breaks.
>
> You have written in the following:
>
> > > Within the Names Council decisions shall be arrived at through a
> > > rough consensus basis, to the extent possible. Such decisions
> > > shall be recorded as "consensus decisions". Consensus will be
> > > assessed by the Chair of the Names Council. If two or more Names
> > > Council members formally object to the measure in question, the
> > > Chair shall determine that a consensus has not been achieved, and
> > > shall call for a formal vote.
> > > In such cases where consensus cannot be achieved and a formal vote
> > > is deemed necessary, the matter shall be publicized before the DNSO
> > > for 15 days, and then a formal, public, recorded online vote of the
> > > Names Council shall be taken. The measure shall pass if two thirds
> > > of the votes cast are in the affirmative. However, in any policy
> > > recommendation the count shall be reported in full to ICANN, so
> > > that ICANN may independently judge the extent of support for the
> > > proposition.
> > >
>
> Do you pretend that the NC decisions you are talking about above -
> adjourning their meetings and when to take coffee breaks - are those that
> need to be reported to ICANN?
>
> You are not talking about policy decisions on matters pertaining strictly to
> the NC. You are writing in mechanisms by which the NC can originate and
> determine policy recommendations without the oversight of the membership,
> what was refused by the Washington participants and precisely the bone of
> contention that caused the ORSC and the BWG to protest against the IANA's
> bylaws, resulting in the qualifications to support of those bylaws by the
> NTIA.
>
> Do you think that because the interim ICANN board has temporarily gotten
> away with this, the DNSO Names Council can as well?
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
