RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
Perhaps I should be more clear. I agree that the Bylaws allow for the
creation of additional SO's. By the wording of the Bylaws, there appears to
be only one *process* defined that would initiate the consideration of
another SO, namely a Staff Recommendation. The Bylaws state:
"(b) The Board may amend the Bylaws to create additional Supporting
Organizations if it determines, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of
the Board, that it would serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event
of a staff recommendation that an additional Supporting Organization should
be created, the Board will post the staff recommendation on the Web Site,
including a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or
desirable, set a reasonable time for the receipt of public comments, and not
make a final decision to seek the consensus development of such additional
Supporting Organization until it has taken into account all such comments."
All other considerations rely upon a vote of the board. However, there is
no clear process as to how that consideration by the Board may be reached.
Is there a method by which the Board would be enacted to review such a
consideration? Petition? Formal letter? etc.?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vint cerf [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:46 AM
> To: Gene Marsh; Derek Conant; email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
> There is a process for SO creation and it is found in the ByLaws
> (section 3 in Article VI Supporting Organizations).
> there should be a copy of the bylaws on the www.icann.org
> website. New constituencies in the DNSO can be initiated by by
> petition or by board-initiated action (see Article VI-B, section 3(d)).
> At 09:09 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
> >Is there a defined (formal or informal) process for the
> >of an SO? I was of the impression that there was no such
> defined process,
> >even for the creation of a new constituency within an existing SO.
> >If the currently accepted model allows for consideration by petition or
> >formal recommendation, even that would be good information to have.
> >Could you please clarify?
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> vint cerf
> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:13 AM
> >> To: Derek Conant; email@example.com
> >> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> Subject: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
> >> Derek,
> >> thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.
> >> I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
> >> specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
> >> with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
> >> be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
> >> constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
> >> restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
> >> at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.
> >> Vint Cerf
> >> At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
> >> >The ICANN Board should take into consideration the
> demonstrated lack of
> >> >progress in the ccTLD constituency record and the ICANN Board should
> >> >take into account the admissions made by the ccTLD representatives
> >> >concerning the lack of progress in the ccTLD constituency.
> >> >
> >> >It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status
> within ICANN
> >> >is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
> >> >However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
> >> >demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
> >> >consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
> >> >this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
> >> >compromised or cheapened.
> >> >
> >> >The ccTLD constituency appears to have based its demand for SO status
> >> >upon claims that all of the ccTLD members believe that the DNSO is
> >> >holding up ccTLD advancements and that ccTLD members have lost their
> >> >faith in the DNSO, and that funding the DNSO is also an issue.
> >> >
> >> >Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
> >> >my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members
> voted (if I
> >> >am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected). It may be that
> >> >only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
> >> >proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not
> understand the
> >> >process or representations.
> >> >
> >> >It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
> >> >proof that it can effectively function at the SO level. With the
> >> >ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
> >> >does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
> >> >necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
> >> >international community.
> >> >
> >> >This may be ICANN's opportunity to inform the ccTLD constituency, the
> >> >GAC and interested parties, what the minimum requirements are for a SO
> >> >proposal from an organization that is to represent the international
> >> >community. The ccTLD's new founded momentum may increase
> with the ICANN
> >> >Board suggesting that an applicant organization should show
> >> >diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid consensus results,
> >> >that this is first necessary to show standing for SO status. This
> >> >should then cause the international community to pull together in an
> >> >effort to create the diverse, multiple working constituencies
> >> >for a SO proposal that the ICANN Board may consider and this should
> >> >accelerate ICANN's international objectives.
> >> >
> >> >My point is that the ICANN Board should consider that if it allows a
> >> >group to circumvent the DNSO without first having proof that the SO
> >> >applicant fits minimum requirements for SO status, and proof that the
> >> >applicant can effectively function at the SO level, then to award SO
> >> >status without these requirements could destabilize the
> integrity of the
> >> >DNSO and cause other constituencies within the DNSO to lose
> momentum or
> >> >give up when they fail to work within the DNSO. The other
> >> >constituencies within the DNSO are probably also going to
> want SO status
> >> >if ICANN is not cautious with its decision regarding this matter.
> >> >
> >> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne, I explained to the key ccTLD
> >> >representatives that a wholly separate organization from the ccTLD
> >> >constituency may be the proper way to advance internationalization
> >> >within ICANN. I explained that the ccTLD constituency appears too
> >> >narrow in its scope to effectively function at a level higher than
> >> >outside of the DNSO. I suggested that ccTLD representatives and other
> >> >interested parties should endorse a wholly separate organization from
> >> >the ccTLD constituency with demonstrated diverse, multiple working
> >> >constituencies with valid consensus results. I explained that this is
> >> >what is probably needed first.
> >> >
> >> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne 2001, I offered to hand the DNSGA
> >> >organization over to the key ccTLD representatives and interested
> >> >parties. A model I imagine is an international organization (i.e. the
> >> >International DNS Consortium, IDNSC, or DNSGA, or whatever)
> with a broad
> >> >scope of international interests and diversity, multiple working
> >> >constituencies that produce valid consensus. In my opinion, this is
> >> >what the ccTLD representatives and GAC should be shooting
> for. And, to
> >> >protect the DNS, the ICANN Board should not accept anything
> less from an
> >> >applicant when considering granting an organization SO status to
> >> >represent the international community.
> >> >
> >> >If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
> >> >representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
> >> >Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
> >> >they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
> >> >ICANN/ccTLD contracts. Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
> >> >seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
> >> >difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
> >> >difficult obtaining funding. It could also make matters worse within
> >> >the ccTLD constituency.
> >> >
> >> >The ccTLD representatives appear to have stopped short of submitting a
> >> >comprehensive proposal that includes reasonable and necessary
> >> >requirements to show that they deserve to be awarded SO
> status. With all
> >> >of this, it appears that if ICANN grants an unstable and
> >> >organization SO status and seats on the ICANN Board, this could cause
> >> >ICANN itself to become unstable.
> >> >
> >> >Derek Conant
> >> >DNSGA President and Chairman
> >> --
> >> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> >> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html