> In fact, my feeling is that your real point is not "a weak vs. strong
> Board", a subject that most of us thought closed (if it ever has been an
> issue), but "weak vs. strong SOs".
> If we go down this path, we may end up in disrupting the authority of the
> SOs (I am talking about the authority to advise or recommend, not to
> decide).
The "authority to advise or recommend" as described in VI.2(e) removes the
board's ability to decide and override the SO.s.
As such VI.2.(e) is an incorrect description of ICANN process and hence
needs to be removed from the ICANN by-laws.
As for the history, it was a major element in last year's discussions that
the board would have essentially no power to alter what SO's had decided
-- that legacy remains from the IANA drafts.
Many of us worked hard to change that, to make the SO's as "advisory"
bodies. We wanted what is now section 2(e) to be eliminated. We were
fought tooth and nail and the only thing that changed was that another
condition was added to 2(e) and with that change, 2(f) and eventually 2(g)
came along.
Now we see that sanity has come to the fore and that essentially all three
of those provisions are either incorrect statements or are redundant.
The by-laws should be amended to clearly reflect the fact that the SO's
are nothing more than advisory bodies, the work of which the board may
reject, ignore, or amend at the board's pleasure.
In addition, the by-laws should be changed to reflect the fact that the
board is free to completely bypass any SO and adopt any matter on its own
initiative.
--karl--
