Hi Kerry,
ICANNs position is subterfuge at best.
The initial vs. interim board distinction
was an issue because ORSC and BWG made it
one. We were concerned that this board,
formed from a "virgin birth," would make
decisions of substance before the Internet
community could appoint representatives.
It is now apparent that our concerns were
well founded :-(
Jay.
At 04:29 PM 6/16/99 , Kerry Miller wrote:
>
>Esther wrote,
>
>> NSI has promoted the notion that ICANN somehow has violated the
>> White Paper by having an "initial" Board rather than an "interim"
>> Board. This argument is pointless. The White Paper calls for the
>> consensus entity that became ICANN to "appoint, on an interim
>> basis, an initial Board of Directors (an Interim Board)" (emphasis
>> in original]. This "initial" Board was to serve until it
>> established "a system of electing a Board of Directors." Thus, the
>> terms "initial" and "interim" were clearly synonymous in the White
>> Paper.
>
>
>Article V: Section 1 indeed speaks of an "Initial Board":
>
>The initial Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Initial Board")
>shall consist of [a] nine At Large members, [b] the President (when
>appointed) and [c] those Directors that have been selected in
>accordance with these bylaws by any Supporting Organization(s)
>that exists under Section 3(a) of Article VI during the term of any of
>such At Large members. The At Large members of the Initial
>Board shall serve until September 30, 1999, unless by a two-thirds
>(2/3) vote of all the members of the Board that term is extended...
>
>
>Since only the at-large members and yourself are currently sitting,
>minus the remaining Directors indicated in clause c, beginning with
>the conjunction 'and,' it seems to me clear that *as yet* INCANNs
>*Initial Board does not yet exist, and that it significantly clarifies
>the process if this 'at large' (not to say ad-hoc) half of the Initial
>Board were designated as something else, for instance, 'Interim
>Board. Do you not agree that when the (conscientious) history
>books are written, they will wish to make some such distinction --
>for instance, to make it perfectly clear that amendments to the
>bylaws (not to mention certain other statements of policy) were
>made without the participation of any representatives selected by
>the organizations membership?
>
>(You may be interested to know that when I suggested this to Mike
>Roberts, (3 June) he responded (which in itself is more than some
>do!): "The Board will grow incrementally as the SO's add their
>Directors, and as the at large elections are held. I don't see any
>useful distinction between what the board does or doesn't do during
>any particular stage and I doubt that history will either."
>-- that is, whether there are member representatives or not is
>apparently not a useful distinction. May we infer that whether he
>carries the title of President of this board is also not very useful?)
>
>In particular, when you say
>> The White Paper specifically called on the "initial" Board to
>> formulate the necessary consensus policies to allow competition to
>> be introduced as quickly as possible.
>
>doesnt it strike you as not merely "quick," but downright premature
>for 9 appointed members to proceed to do the work of 19 elected
>members? Do you not see that the problems you attribute to NSI
>may be caused largely by your own Board's pre-emption of the
>process? That the 'fierce resistance' you meet is simply because
>you're not doing it right? That if you had not been in quite such a
>hurry, you might not only have properly -- that is, on technical
>grounds -- refused to accept their extension of nondisclosure
>agreements to
>
>> the experiences of the ICANN-accredited registrars now
>> attempting to open up the domain-name registration business
>> to competition
>-- but had wide public support for the 'delay' a showdown at that
>time (instead of the present backhanded attack) might have
>caused?
>
>Cheers,
>kerry
>
> "When we are asked direct questions we answer them." - E
>Dyson.
>
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
