At 2/8/99, 04:47 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> > Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
>> > gives recommendations to ICANN.
>>
>> That is all the DNSO CAN do Kent, so this is no distinction.
>
>Of course. However, Jay, Einar, and others have continuously spread
>the misinformation that the dnso.org proposal was somehow going to
>"make policy" -- as opposed to "recommend policy". I just wanted to
>make it explicit for their benefit.
Kent, what are you talking about?
Under your proposal, the *NAMES COUNCIL* decides
when there is a consensus, and it decides who gets
to represents the DNSO on the ICANN Board.
>From your own document:
===========================
"A consensus recommendation is one that is supported by the affirmative vote of two
thirds of the members of the Names Council and is not opposed by the votes of all of
the representatives of any two constituencies. "
"The Names Council shall have the power to select three candidates for the first round
of nominations to the Board of the Corporation, with terms of one, two and three years
respectively, and one candidate for a three year term each year thereafter, from among
those nominated by the nominating committee. "
===========================
The Paris Draft leaves these important decisions
to the General Membership, and is one of the most
important differences between the two drafts.
Kent, please stop spreading FUD!
