___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
Jay, you're back! Short retirement. Let me see if I got this straight:
you and 6 of your best friends decided that this was an important
distinction, even though it didn't exist anywhere else in the original
documents, and because you think it is an important distinction, anyone who
does not is a traitor to democracy and the American way (as defined by
Fenello/BWG/IRSC)? Glad to have you back; the discussion was starting to
trend dangerously toward substance.
(Embedded
image moved Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to file: 06/16/99 07:45 PM
pic25620.pcx)
Extension:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED](null),
[EMAIL PROTECTED](null), [EMAIL PROTECTED](null),
Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED](null) (bcc: Joe
Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Esther
Dyson from Ralph Nader ...
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
pic25620.pcx
