> At 11:05 AM 6/18/99 +0100, Ivan Pope wrote:
> >Kerry,
> >> "When we are asked direct questions we answer them." - E
> >> Dyson.
> >I love that too. So open.
>
> Of course she doesn't say *when*.
It also begs the refrain:
But you never asked...
Did you see they put Esther on the board of WPP?
> Six days and counting, and no response, despite have sent
> this 3 times:
>
> >From the minutes of the closed board meeeting in Berlin, May
> 27, 1999:
> >http://www.icann.org/minutes/berlinminutes.html
> >
> >FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.35), that the Board requests that the
> >Constituency for gTLD registries agree, for so long as
> Network Solutions is the only
> >participant in such Constituency, to select only one
> individual (rather than three) to
> >represent that Constituency on the provisional Names
> Council, and the Board states
> >that if such Constituency does not agree to make only one
> such selection, the Board
> >will amend the Bylaws to effectuate such goal.
> >
> >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.
>
