Joe Simms said:
>your mind is a scary thing. there has never been anything stopping you or
>any proto-group you form from making suggestions to anyone, including the
>ICANN Board, anytime you want to. Nor has there ever, except apparently in
>your mind, been any struggle over strong vs weak Boards. The SOs have
>always been, at least in the eyes of those who proposed them in the first
>place, vehicles for the debate over and development of policy
>recommendations; they remain that today. I understand (I guess) that you
>have a little different way to look at these things, and more power to you,
>but you may understand why that idiosyncratic approach is not attractive
>or persuasive to others. By the way, the fact that no one else that I know
>of has read the language the way you do is some evidence that it is not the
>language that is ambiguous.
Joe (if I can call you that without being accused of being an ICANN minion
or an NSI shill :-)) at least one of the meetings that I attended with Jon
Englund, INTA, CORE, et al discussed exactly strong vs. weak boards prior
to the final adoption of bylaws. Also, one of the telephone conferences
ORSC had with Becky Burr spoke specifically to strong vs. weak board. So
yes, there indeed was such a struggle.
Further, MUCH of the language of the bylaws has indeed been rather
ambiguous, and that fact that even one reading that differs from your own
should point to that conclusion. It was indeed something that was
discussed on several different lists prior to the compromise drafts being
produced.
Lastly, I'd like to reiterate how helpful it is that you are engaging in
discourse on this list. Thank you for choosing to do that.
