[ga] Board decisions (2)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Amadeu@nominalia.com, karl@CaveBear.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: [ga] Board decisions (2)
- From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:17:16 +0200
- CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Organization: CSL GmbH
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Mr Chairman, members of the ICANN board, members of NC,
members of constituencies and GA
A) CHANGE OF BYLAWS
it was hard to imagine, but it happened : the board of ICANN used
the power they have (according the bylaws) and voted against the
recommendations of the DNSO constituencies and community.
In my view these is a fundamental breach of the spirit and intention
of ICANN and the involved parties.
Doing so, they showed that they consider themself "selected"
(not elected !), but not responsible to those who made the choice.
ICANN bylaws says:
Article V, Section 8. DUTIES OF DIRECTORS
Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in
what they reasonably believe are the best interests of the
Corporation and not as representatives of the subordinate entity
that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or
Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those who
elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are not
representatives in the words meaning ).
I can not see any sense in participating in a body
( constituency ) which is ignored by the board; even worse: is just
used from time to time for "selections", intending to show an
democratic structure which in reality is not present. I can not see
that ICANN itself can claim to be acting for the internet community
if the bylaws remain unchanged in section 8.
In addition I fail to see that the BoD followed Article VI, Section 2
RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS
in which the process of taking decisions is described.
(f) If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of a
Supporting Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the
Supporting Organization for further consideration, along with a
statement of the reasons it declines to accept the
recommendation. If, after reasonable efforts, the Board does not
receive a recommendation from the Supporting Organization
that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this Article VI
or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting
recommendations from Supporting Organizations, and the Board
there is a justification for prompt action, the Board may initiate,
amend or modify and then approve a specific policy
Lets have a quick look to the members of BoD:
Selected by DOC:
Linda S. Wilson
not clear to whom they should be responsible
- Jon Postel ?
- DOC ?
- company who pays the salary ?
These persons hardly can be asked to justify their decisions,
which obviously is a problem.
Elected from PSO:
Vinton G. Cerf
From my view primarily responsible to PSO, but also to the other
SO, as the decision was affecting DNSO more than others, I
would have expected a bit more conformity with spirit and VI,2,f
A special case is Helmut, who left the timely short conference
before voting, because of more importand things I heard,
interesting... ( personal note from a german to a german)
Elected from ASO:
same as for PSO if you change PSO with ASO. At least one (Ken)
showed by abstaining that the spirit exists.
Elected from DNSO:
Amadeu Abril i Abril
Well, as a member of DNSO I tend to be more radical here and
ask the two ( Alejandro and Jonathan ) who voted against the
recommendations, to justify their decision or to resign.
( I know you dont have to, according the bylaws, but you must
if you dont want to loose credability :-)
Elected from atLarge:
Ivan Moura Campos
Here I have again a problem. to whom should they be responsible?
It seems to me that having elections from time to time is not really
a "representative democracy", something the LASC will have to
find a solution. But at least 2 of them ( Andy and Karl ) voted
according the GA ( from my point of view something similar to
if we accept the outcome of last weeks and do not learn and
improve ICANN we better use our time earning money leaving
ICANN to laywers. That could then be called "lawcracy" or
"lawcrazy" ?, sorry about my english :-))
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html