Re: [ga] Re: WLS Suggestion ... and results

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

>
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm
>

Well, it seems that by staying off the net for a couple of days I missed all 
the fun!

Letīs see, if I can read correctly, it says:
"The Board approved the above resolution by a 11-2-2 vote, with Mr. Abril i 
Abril and Mr. Auerbach opposed and Dr. Kyong and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn 
abstaining"

The good news is that my favourite Directors voted against (I will answer 
Karlīs message later).
So, two out of three DNSO Directors voted against the consensus of the DNSO. 
While it is well understood that the Directors act in their own capacity, 
and do not represent their home organization, it seems odd that the NC 
expresses one opinion, and the NC-elected Directors express a different one.

True, following the General Counsel report, the decision was slightly 
different than the initial WLS proposal, but the substance is mostly there. 
And anyway, it is common practice that in a negotiation you shoot high 
initially, and you settle for less.
So, my analysis is that the big winner is Verisign, that with the excuse of 
giving one more option, it has de-facto wiped out all competition on the 
"second-hand DN" market and further consolidated the concept that .com is 
run by the Registry.
Slowly slowly, firs with the amendment to the contract that allowed them to 
run Registry and Registrar, then by adding value to Registry part, Verisign 
is recovering from the losses due to increased competition.
Who is the loser? Many, I believe, as always when a move goes towards 
favouring a monopoly. But who comes out with broken bones from this story, 
methinks, is the DNSO, that has once again the confirmation that its opinion 
is not held in great value.
The funny thing is that a lot of us have complained about the little role 
that the GA has in the DNSO, where all the power is in the NC. Well, the 
power for doing what? For proposing consensus policy position that are 
disregarded by the Board, including NC-elected Directors? If I were the NC 
Chair, I would propose resignation en-masse of the NC. I know this will not 
happen, and that the NC will swallow also this one without reacting, well, 
maybe a formal message of complaint, but that will be it.

Another final consideration is about how the Board meetings are held.
I have no idea about the "special telephone meetings", but it has been 
noticed by many, including yours truly, on how the Staff excerces a heavy 
influence on the Board in public meetings. I honestly doubt that they will 
take a lower profile in private meetings. So the question might arise, what 
happens when we have a difference of opinion between the ICANN Staff and the 
Supporting Organization that is relevant for the matter discussed? The Staff 
has plenty of possibilities to attack the SOīs position and defend their 
own, but who defends the SOīs position? Not the SOīs own Directors, because 
they do not represent the SO in the Board, they just represent themselves 
(and this is proven by the fact that they can vote like loose guns).
This is a serious question. When a matter on which a SO has jurisdiction 
goes to the Board, the SO has to be granted the possibility to participate 
to the debate directly, and not via intermediation of people that do not act 
in the interest of the SO. For instance, the NC Chair has to go and explain 
the reasons of the consensus.
How can a judge give a fair judgement if plaintiff and defendant are not 
been given equal rights?

Regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

--
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