Re: [ifwp] Re: Report From Monterrey (2nd DNSO Meeting)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all,

  It is difficult to see the organization to which you refer, could be construed

to be of interest to the ICANN or any ligitimate and properly constructed
organization in compliance of the White Paper as it does not meet
the litmus test of open, Transparent and Accountable.

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi, all.
>
> First of all, thanks to Michael for his nice words, and for starting this
> thread.
>
> I heard another comment from a participant in the DNSO meeting who was
> expecting to be cornered and yelled at, but found the environment favourable
> to dialog instead.
> I guess that this means that this process was giving the wrong image, and to
> a certain extent I shall wonder why. But this is probably a subject for the
> DNSO list, rather than this one.
>
> To one specific point, raised by Chris Ambler:
>
> > There is, of course, a simple solution:
> >
> > The DNSO can simply put in their bylaws that they will not appoint
> > any board members, and choose to allocate their 3 board members
> > as part of the election of members by the NewCo membership.
> >
> The rule of the game has been to produce a skeleton of organization to be
> endorsed by ICANN.
> If the idea is to have our application accepted, it will not be wise to
> start by producing rules and bylaws that are conflicting with ICANN's
> documents.
>
> OTOH, the issue behind your proposed solution seems to me rather the problem
> of representativity of the DNSO-selected ICANN Directors.
> In this respect, the DNSO solution is as close we could get to yours without
> being in conflict with ICANN. The proposal is to have these 3 persons be
> elected by the DNSO Membership, rather than appointed by some DNSO governing
> body, knowing that the DNSO Membership is the ICANN Membership that has
> interest in the DNS.
> In fact, this is pretty close to my reading of the ORSC proposed bylaws,
> that contains the idea of one part of Board Directors elected by DNS
> constituencies.
>
> As a last comment, I regret that some players have been absent from the
> debate on DNSO (not to speak about other SOs). I think that to discuss on
> how this organization should be built, and what its relationship with ICANN
> should be, is a very helpful exercise in understanding better how ICANN
> itself can be improved.
>
> Take membership, for instance.
> There has been no question whatsoever, since the beginning, that DNSO would
> have had an open membership. The focus of the discussion was only on how
> this Membership could be organized (individuals, Organizations, which
> constituencies, relationship with ICANN Membership, and so on).
> Maybe the proceedings of this debate could be helpful for ICANN Membership.
>
> Wouldn't it be useful to have more people participating and provide ideas?
>
> Roberto
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208