At 06:45 PM 7/9/99 , William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>Read this carefully. If I am not mistaken this removes the rules
>about NC members from the same company/organization and is trying to
>hide that it is doing that under the disguise of a "problem" with
>NSI's actions.
>
>This would seem to me to be more of a justification for their letting
>CORE/ISOC capture the DNSO NC.
>
>I maybe wrong here, so some of you who have a bit more time today read
>it and check it out and let us know one way or the other.
>
>
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:47:39 -0400, "Andrew McLaughlin"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>July 9, 1999
>>
>>Mr. Jim Rutt
>>Chief Executive Officer
>>Network Solutions, Inc.
>>505 Huntmar Park Drive
>>Herndon, Virginia 20170
>>
>>Dear Jim,
>>
>>Thanks for stepping into the current controversy concerning representation
>>on the DNSO Names Council from the gTLD constituency. You can appreciate,
>>given my prior correspondence with Don Telage, that ICANN is attempting to
>>reach and maintain a position of fairness to all the parties concerned in
>>this matter.
>>
>>As NSI's representatives at the Berlin ICANN meetings have surely informed
>>you, there appeared to be a near-unanimous sentiment expressed at the public
>>ICANN meeting on May 26 that no one company should be able to place more
>>than one representative on the Names Council.
Democracy: 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
-- Richard Sexton
Hi Mike,
Is ICANN a vehicle of law, or is it a vehicle of
whomever shouts the loudest at an open meeting?
(which, coincidentally, was held in conjunction
with an ISOC meeting).
>>The peculiar situation of the
>>gTLD Constituency Group -- at the moment, NSI is the only member -- means
>>that, absent compliance with the Board's request, a single company would
>>select one-seventh of the members of the Names Council. It seemed clear in
>>Berlin that the community consensus, with which I and the Board agree, was
>>that no one company should have that level of influence in a body that is
>>designed to be broadly representative of the various worldwide communities
>>of interest that constitute the DNSO.
Then why did the Board write their by-laws to
specifically *give* NSI the right to select one-
seventh of the members of the Names Council?
http://www.icann.org/bylaws-09apr99.html
VI-B:3(c) Members of each Constituency shall select three individuals to represent
that Constituency on the NC . . . no such member may make more than one nomination in
any single Constituency; provided that this limitation shall not apply to any
Constituency with less than three members.
>>Your letter of last week, which nominates an employee plus two of your
>>lawyers to the Names Council, is not consistent with the views of the
>>community. Since this is the second letter from Network Solutions which does
>>not accept the consensus view, the ICANN Board must now do what it is
>>supposed to do: follow the community consensus.
I agree with William and others, that you and
the ICANN Board are a party to the gaming and
capture of the DNSO, and this letter is simply
another bogus attempt to retain a controllable
majority within that body.
Jay.
>>In this case that means to
>>proceed with its stated intention to amend the pertinent portions of the
>>Bylaws in the absence of your voluntary agreement to limit your
>>representation to one member.
>>
>>In the next few days, we will post the following proposed amendment to the
>>ICANN Bylaws for public comment in accordance with our normal procedures:
>>
>> RESOLVED, that Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of the
>> Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:
>>
>> "The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance
>> with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency
>> recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth
>> in Section 3 of this Article. Any dispute about whether any
>> such representative is a proper member of the NC shall be
>> resolved by, or at the direction of, the Board."
>>
>> FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws
>> of the Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the
>> following:
>>
>> "Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to represent
>> that Constituency on the NC, no two of which may be, except with the
>> consent of the Board, residents of the same Geographic Region, as
>> defined in Article V, Section 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
>> no Constituency may have more representatives on the NC than there
>> are members of the Constituency. Nominations within each Constituency
>> may be made by any member of the Constituency, but no such member may
>> make more than one nomination in any single Constituency."
>>
>> FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of
>> the Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:
>>
>> "Unless shorterned by the Board in its recognition of a Constituency,
>> the term of office for each member of the NC shall be two years,
>> subject to earlier removal by the Constituency that selected such
>> member or by a three-fourths majority vote of all members of the
>> Board."
>>
>>The other members of the ICANN Board and I do not believe that amending our
>>Bylaws to eliminate avenues for the pursuit of special interest objectives
>>is a useful exercise. All of us have more important things to do. As a new
>>player, and one committed to making the system work for everyone by your
>>recent public statement, it would be a valuable contribution to making the
>>DNSO successful if you accepted the consensus view and voluntarily agreed to
>>name only one member to the Names Council.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>- Mike
>>
>>Michael M. Roberts
>>Interim President and Chief Executive Officer
>>
>>
>>cc: DNSO Names Council
>> DNSO General Assembly
>
>
>--
>William X. Walsh
>General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>
>"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
>characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
>--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
>
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
