Richard and all,
Kinda funny how that works isn't it Richard? It appears that those that
have been outspoken in their bowing to ICANN seem to get service
post haste and those that have not don't. Some openness there, eh?
(Note: sarcasm intended)
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> 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*.
>
> 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.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
