<INEGroup legal Bcc'ed and suppressed in this response>
Jay Fenello wrote:
At 06:45 PM 7/9/99 , William X. Walsh wrote:Jay, actually I believe it is both, sadly...
>
>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 SextonHi 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.
This has been pointed out many times to the ICANN (Initial?
Interim
Board, and most especially its legal council, Joe Simms, which
purposefully mislead congress in his last appearance. I hope
that
Congressman Tom Bililey and the rest of the House Commerce Committee
take serious notice of this yet again misleading purveyed this time
by Andrew McLaughlin, in behalf of the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board
I can only suppose, as he originated this thread.
This is just another of many examples, that I would be more than
happy to testify to in front of congress, that the ICANN (Initial?)
Interim Board has been perpetrating to the participants of these
somewhat open to the public mailing lists. Much evidence in this
regard however is available on the ICANN's own archives.
Indeed this does seem to strongly be the case, as the evidence is>>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.
so overwhelming it is impossible for even the most neutral observer
could not help to determine...
Regards,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
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
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
