[IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and its constituents. The amendment to Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws allows the ICANN Board to resolve disputes about which member of a constituency is recognized as a Names Council member. Such disputes should be resolved by the constituency itself, according to their own rules. The amendment to Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws deals with two issues. On the question of geographical diversity, the ICANN Board has created distrust by its apparent willingness to make exceptions for trademark interests and other big business constituents. Once again, I would prefer not to see discretionary power in the hands of the board. Either enforce geographical diversity or don't. On the second question, while I agree with the provision that a constituency cannot have more NC representatives than it has members, I do not agree with limiting the number of nominations a member can make. The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office. Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members. -- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
Re: [IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office. Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members. What a marked contrast to the BWG and ORSC rules where board members could be removed. Has this become blatently obvious yet as to what is actually going on?
Re: [IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
Milton and all Excellent comments here Milton. I could not agree more. I will pass these on to our [INEGroup] board for review as well, I am fairly sure that they will meet with their approval. IT seems that this ICANN (Initial?) Interim board again, and continues to demonstrate that they care nothing for their responsibilities to the requirements of the White Paper and the MoU as well with this sort of "Top Down" structure. Milton Mueller wrote: The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and its constituents. The amendment to Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws allows the ICANN Board to resolve disputes about which member of a constituency is recognized as a Names Council member. Such disputes should be resolved by the constituency itself, according to their own rules. The amendment to Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws deals with two issues. On the question of geographical diversity, the ICANN Board has created distrust by its apparent willingness to make exceptions for trademark interests and other big business constituents. Once again, I would prefer not to see discretionary power in the hands of the board. Either enforce geographical diversity or don't. On the second question, while I agree with the provision that a constituency cannot have more NC representatives than it has members, I do not agree with limiting the number of nominations a member can make. The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office. Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members. -- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ Regards, -- 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
Re: [IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
Mikki and all, One wonders, doesn't one Mikki? It might be worthwile for you to elaborate in your own words as to what your thoughts are here. I know what mine and INEGroups are, in this respect Mikki Barry wrote: The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office. Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members. What a marked contrast to the BWG and ORSC rules where board members could be removed. Has this become blatently obvious yet as to what is actually going on? Regards, -- 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
Re: [IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
Milton Mueller a écrit: The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and its constituents. What difference does it make, when the DNSO and all its constituencies are in the hands of the same people who appointed the board? And you're still worried about the bylaws? How much proof do you need that ICANN doesn't give a good goddamn about what its bylaws say? But you're going to go on and on and on, discussing and arguing over their worthless and meaningless bylaws, while they have stolen the DNS and are forcing registrants to give up their constitutional rights? What kind of bloody fool are you? Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
