This is one of the few occasions where I agree with Joe. The NSI/ICANN/Commerce deal does gives NSI some protections over ICANN's egregious manipulations of the definition of consensus, but it does little to protect anyone else. :-( Jay. At 11:17 AM 10/12/99 , Joe Sims wrote: >This may be correct, but does not have to be. It assumes that the >standards set forth in the NSI contracts are seen as workable and desirable >by the community as a whole. > >First, just to correct the record, what I said earlier is that the >agreements merely set forth those circumstances under which NSI must comply >with an ICANN policy decision. If no compliance by NSI is required, >obviously the criteria set forth do not constrain what ICANN can do. NSI >says they are not opposed to new gTLDs, but even if it changes its >position, the agreements (as opposed to ICANN bylaws) would not give them >any basis for objecting to a Board decision (with the minor exceptions >noted in my earlier post, all of which are not significant in my view). > >On your broader point, since the criteria set forth in the Registry >Agreement apply only to NSI, and the criteria set forth in the Registrar >Accreditation Agreement do not add anything meaningful to the criteria and >concepts set forth in the bylaws, it is not clear that the agreements have >any inevitable effect. If, on the other hand, the community at large >concludes that the articulation of consensus that is contained in the >agreements is a useful one, it can obviously be ported to a broader >environment. > > >Jonathan Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe Sims replied to Ben Edelman (I don't have the messages in >front of me) that the "consensus" provisions in the new contracts are less >constraining than they might look, since they only kick in if NSI or a >registrar in fact challenges a particular action. gTLD expansion, Joe >suggests, won't be constrained by the consensus provisions, since NSI >isn't opposed to new gTLDs. (Somebody please correct me if I'm >remembering his message incorrectly.) > > This is fine so far as it goes, but it doesn't seem to me like a >complete answer. ICANN has repeatedly proclaimed itself a consensus-based >organization, and the new documents purport to set out a definition of >"consensus." This suggests to me that *any* action ICANN takes that >doesn't comport with the "consensus" requirements set out in the contracts >will now be widely perceived as illegitimate, and that the ICANN Board >will be reluctant to take such action. The impact of the new documents, >thus, will be to strongly discourage *any* action taken by ICANN relevant >to domain names without, say, a supermajority of the Names Council, >without regard to whether the action would technically violate the >contracts. Doesn't that bring Ben's question back to the fore? > >Jon > > >Jonathan Weinberg >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Respectfully, Jay Fenello, New Media Relations ------------------------------------ http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480