This url works today, but won't be relevant tomorrow. http://stream.internet.com/Content/newscast.ram I suspect this is the right url: http://stream.internet.com/Content/inr19990616.ram >From the ICANN bylaws: >Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES > >(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own criteria for >participation, except that no individual or entity shall be excluded from >participation in a >Constituency merely because of participation in another Constituency, and >constituencies >shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and >consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board shall recognize a >Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in (b) below) by a >majority vote, >whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to exist for purposes of these Bylaws. If the gTLD constituency is (in theory) allowed to self organize, I simply do not understand why ICANN can dictate who is or who is not a member. Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:42:47 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [bwg-n-friends] NSI allocates seats to IDNO and TLD Ass'n constituencies Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 11 June 1999 > > Internet Corporation for > Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Board of Directors > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 > Marina del Rey CA 90292 > > CC: Michael Roberts > Interim President and CEO > > Pursuant to Art VI-B, Sec. 2(a) of the Bylaws for Internet Corporation for > Assigned Names and Numbers, Network Solutions as member of the gTLD > constituency hereby submits the following three individuals as members of > the Names Council: > > Representative > Donald N. Telage > Senior VP Network Solutions > 505 Huntmar Drive > Herndon VA 20170 USA > Tel: +1 703.742.4707 > Fax: +1 703.742.3386 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Representative > Joop Teernstra > Cyberspace Association > 38 Sharon Road, > Browns Bay Auckland, > 1301 New Zealand > Tel: +64 9 4795552 > Fax: +64 9 4795552 > mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Representative > Richard J. Sexton > Top Level Domain Association > Maitland House > Bannockburn ON K0K 1Y0 > Canada Tel: +1 (613) 473-1719 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sec 2(a) explicitly allows Network Solutions, as member of the gTLD > Registry constituency, to specify three Names Council seats. Until such > time as additional top level domains are created and additional gTLD > Registries come into existence, the gTLD constituency will use two of the > three seats to provide an interim opportunity for individual domain name > holders and prospective registries to make their views known. > Following its closed meeting in Berlin, the ICANN Board issued resolutions > that included a request that the gTLD Registry Constituency voluntarily > relinquish its right under the ByLaws to select three representatives to > the Names Council of the DNSO, coupled with a statement that the Board > would amend its ByLaws to eliminate such representation if this action > were not taken "voluntarily". > > Network Solutions, the current sole constituent of the gTLD Registry > constituency, is mindful of concerns about any one company having more > than one representative on the Names Council. (Indeed, the current Bylaws > already prohibit more than one employee, officer or director of any > company from serving on the Names Council -- a requirement that appears, > by the way, to have been violated when Theresa Swinehart of MCI Worldcom > was elected by the Commercial and Business constituencies after Susan > Anthony of MCI Worldcom had already been elected by the IP constituency). > > The Names Council should act merely to facilitate the development of > consensus in the General Assembly and, as such, should not need to have a > "balance" of any particular number of seats for any particular faction. > (We have seen some statements by members of the provisional Names Council > that give us concerns about whether it will act in this fashion, but we > remain hopeful that the Names Council will not become a "top down" > decision-making body.) Nevertheless, the allocation of Names Council seats > among various initial constituencies was the subject of a consensus in > Singapore (as ICANN President Mike Roberts himself noted in Berlin). A > consensus reached in the DNSO should not be disregarded or overturned by > the ICANN Board, especially in a closed process and without the benefit of > careful reconsideration in the DNSO process itself. > > Another consensus reached at the DNSO meeting in Singapore was that all > stakeholders interested in the domain name system should have an > opportunity to participate in the DNSO and to select representatives to > the Names Council. It was for this reason that the ByLaws reflected an > opportunity for additional constituencies to apply for recognition. If the > central goal of the Names Council will be credibly to declare the > existence of a consensus in the General Assembly, it must have members > representing all the important stakeholder voices. > > It is surprising and disappointing, in this context, that the ICANN Board > would ignore the application of an individual domain name holder > constituency to be added to the DNSO. Regardless of the role played by > individuals in electing at large ICANN Board members at some future time, > it is vital for the voice of individual domain name holders (a large > percentage of the customers of gTLD registries) to be heard. It is also > important for prospective registries of new TLDs to be heard, and we > understand that the TLDA has applied for recognition as a constituency of > prospective registries. > > Accordingly, Network Solutions, acting for now as the gTLD Registry > constituency, in addition to naming myself as a Names Council > representative, declines to reliquish the Names Council seats allocated to > this constituency in the ByLaws. Until such time as additional top level > domains are created and additional gTLD Registries come into existence, or > the two additional constituencies in question are recognized as entitled > to select Names Council members directly (if that occurs earlier), the > gTLD constituency will use two of the three seats to provide an interim > opportunity for individual domain name holders and prospective registries > to make their views known. One seat will be allocated by the gTLD > constituency to an individual recommended by the Cyberspace Association, > an open group representing individuals who hold domain names. (Joop > Teernstra has been selected by that group, in an open voting process.) > Another seat will be allocated to an individual recommended by the TLD > Association, a group of prospective registries. (Richard J. Sexton has > been selected.) > > Both allocations will be on a "no strings" basis -- so that these > individuals can represent points of view otherwise unrepresented in Names > Council deliberations and without any obligation to reflect the views of > Network Solutions. But we should note that we believe these selections > serve the interests of the gTLD constituency, the DNSO and ICANN as a > whole. The voice of individual registrants must be heard in the policy > making process, not just in the selection of ICANN board members. The root > should be opened expeditiously -- and prospective registries must be > allowed to give their views regarding the orderly process under which this > can be achieved. > > We take this action in part because the Names Council as now > constituted is not adequately balanced and open to all viewpoints. We > supported the Paris draft, which suggested mechanisms that would help to > assure that any DNSO recommendations reflect a true consensus among > impacted stakeholders (such as a requirement that any one individual or > organization may join only one constituency, a requirement for some > minimum percentage of the General Assembly membership to join a > constituency in order to elect a Names Council member, and assured > reflection in Names Council proceedings of the voices of those who might > be called upon to implement any suggested policies). The ICANN Board > should seriously consider how it can avoid the creation of a > gerrymandered, captured DNSO -- and the importance of deferring any policy > decisions until the Board receives consensus recommendations from an open > and vigorous DNSO process. > > The Board's actions in Berlin -- threatening to amend a previously reached > consensus unilaterally, denying recognition to important groups of > stakeholders, and encouragement of policy decisions by an only partially > formed and apparently skewed DNSO structure -- were all steps in the wrong > direction. We call upon the Board to renew its commitment to inclusive, > open, bottom up processes. The resolution of the issues relating to gTLD > Registry constituency representation outlined above in that spirit. An > amendment to the Board's bylaws, as threatened in its most recent > resolution, would constitute a violation of ICANN's MOU with the U.S. > Government and a violation of the letter and spirit of the White Paper. > > Sincerely, > Donald N. Telage > Senior Vice President > On behalf of the gTLD Constituency. > > >> >> Mr. Donald Telage >> Network Solutions, Inc. >> >> Dear Don, >> >> Your message of today, copied in part below, is not responsive to the May 27 >> resolution of the ICANN Board with respect to participation of the gTLD >> constituency in the provisional DNSO Names Council. >> >> In order to participate in the Names Council, Network Solutions must name a >> single representative as directed by the May 27th resolution. >> >> The Board appreciates your concern for representation of a full range of >> interests in the work of the DNSO. The Board has considered and discussed >> this objective both at its Singapore and at its Berlin meetings and in the >> public fora associated with those meetings. It took particular note of the >> needs of individual domain name holders for representation in its At Large >> and Supporting Organization constituencies and indicated in its actions in >> Berlin that it will incorporate the views of these constituencies in its >> further actions in forming these constituencies and their representation >> structures. >> >> However, it is not the role of the gTLD constituency, or of Network >> Solutions, to deal with these issues. There are appropriate public >> consensus mechanisms provided in the ICANN Bylaws and in our noticed actions >> in this area for accomplishing that objective. >> >> I look forward to hearing from you at an early date that you have >> reconsidered your actions presented to us today and are prepared to >> participate in the provisional Names Council in the manner adopted >> by the Board. >> >> Sincerely, >> Michael M. Roberts >> Interim President and Chief Executive Officer -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.