DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val


Kent Crispin wrote:

0) Things change.
Nothing has changed, point to one material change.
1) The USG is one of the signatories to the contract.  The DNSO is not.
That is nonsense, a BoD represents the corporation, DNSO is a fully entitled part of that corporation.  The BoD is not the corporation it is the board which can only act on behalf of the corporation. Therefor clearly the DNSO is part of the corporation which is a signatory to the contract.
2) The DNSO is part of ICANN, it is not ICANN.
That is correct the BoD is not ICANN it is part of ICANN and the Staff is supposed to be the highly paid employee/servants, not of the BoD but of ICANN to which the DNSO is part and the staff is not.
3) The DNSO is concerned with general policy, not contract
Lest you did not know, in California Public Policy is a fully integrated part of each and every contract.  Violate Public Policy and your Contract is void or voidable. Therefor it is the contract that must be subservient to the DNSO which is the Public policy formation group in ICANN which is an APA controlled government contractor. The White Paper is also a public policy directive which governs the terms of the contract.  You are looking at this as though you were standing on your head.  The DNSO and it's input is required by every document enabling ICANN to operate.  The BoD is answerable to the DNSO and not the other way around as our staff has manipulated it.  Rest assured this will be corrected or ICANN will be replaced.
4) That the contracts involved any policy issues is questionable, at
The contract itself involves registration policies look up the word policy I have already posted the defintion for you once. And don't forget every contract is governed by Public Policy so by it's very nature a contract has policy issues, yes even your contract for employment.
5) The DNSO has absolutely no role in policy *enforcement*, even if
there had been policy issues in the contracts.
You are outright just plain wrong here.  The DNSO defines policy and therefor is the director for policy enforcement, again you have the inmates running the asylum.
6) There could even be further changes in the contract as the result of
issues raised by the USG.  That's the way contract negotiations go.
That's why the idea of the DNSO overseeing the contract negotiations
is silly.
No the exact opposite is true if you have read the enabling papers.  I find no authority for Staff to negotiate the contracts can you direct me to it.
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
"Be lonesome and you will come up with lonesome thoughts and conclusions"
Lonesome - "sad or dejected"


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>