Re: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy

[david@farrar.com]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:17:05PM +0000, david@farrar.com wrote:

> > (c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not received 
from 
> > a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any, with 
primary 
> > responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for initial 
> > consideration and recommendation to the Board."
> 
> You left out section (g):
> 
>     (g) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION 2 IS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE
>     BOARD OR THE CORPORATION act on matters not within the scope of
>     primary responsibility of a Supporting Organization or TO TAKE
>     ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD FINDS ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO FURTHER
>     THE PURPOSES OF THE CORPORATION. 
>         [Emphasis added]
> 
> If something of a timely and important nature comes up, the board to
> fully empowered to act. 

Oh I agree that from a strictly legal point of view there is no way to stop the 
Board.  But my appeal is to look at the importance of the issues and for them 
not to use what is almost an emergency power to bypass the proper policy 
making/consensus channel of the DNSO.  If the DNSO is ignored on this issue 
then to be honest it might as well pack its bags and go home - its only role 
will be to elect a Board member every year.

The effects of these decisions will be with us for 7 - 10 years.  That is worth 
consulting properly on, especially as the proposed changes have come out of 
thin air - i doubt anyone not on the Board or with NSI even knew there wre 
negiotations happening.  I do not have a problem that the staff have negiotated 
a draft (even though it would have been nice to seek guidance from Names 
Council or initial points of principle rathwer than present a fait accomplit)
but I would have a problem if the DNSO is not given adequate time to consider 
the issues and for them to be the body which recommends the adoption ro 
otherwise.
 
> > There is little doubt that the proposed changes to the Verisign agreements 
> > represent major policy changes.  They propose to change the policy that 
> > eventually the registry and registrars for *.com must not have the
> > same owners, they also look at changing the nature of *.org.  It does
> > not get much bigger or wide ranging than this. 
> > 
> > I first note that the DNSO did not originate the proposed policy change and 
> > there doesn't seem to have been any discussion at all about this within the 
> > DNSO.
> 
> No surprise there.  The DNSO doesn't originate anything.

Unfortunately not.  However if perhaps the staff had mentioned that it is 
considered desirable to renegiotate the DNSO could have given some guidance as 
to what is seen as priority areas to concentrate on.
 
> > But more importantly the bylaws are absolutely clear that the Board *must* 
> > refer these proposals to the DNSO which shall initially consider them and 
> > recommend for or against them to the Board.  Clauses (e) and (f) make
> > it clear that the Board should not adopt any policy change unless the SO
> > has recommended it (unless it has been referred back to SO at least
> > once)
> 
> Clause (g) makes it clear that the board can act regardless of clauses 
> (e) and (f).

Again yes they *can* act but I contend they *should* not act until it has been 
referred to the DNSO and the Names Council is satisfied it have consulted 
enough to be able to recommend a consenus opinion to the Board.

DPF


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html