[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DNSO / Fluid Constituencies
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:32:16 -0800
- From: Kent Crispin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: DNSO / Fluid Constituencies
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:56:28AM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >Just a reminder: what we are preparing is an application, not
> Fair point. As I recall from the notes of the Monterrey meeting, however,
> it appeared that there was not consensus on whether the focus at this
> time should simply be on an application (in the interests of time, focus
> on the most important thing first) or create an organization with bylaws
> and then file the application.
Actually, I think there was a fairly clear understanding that the
application was by far the most important thing, because of
deadlines from ICANN.
Another important point about the bylaws: there was, I believe, also
a fairly clear understanding that the DNSO is not to be incorporated
separately from ICANN. Thus the notion of bylaws is not, strictly
speaking, applicable. Instead we might think in terms of some sort
of charter document -- but that is what the application is.
> My personal opinion is that filing the application is secondary to
> creating a functional, complete DNSO with a well-conceived concept of
> what the DNSO is and what its bylaws will be. I also suspect that the
> DNSO's "application" will be more favorably received by the ICANN Board
> if the application is made on behalf of a real entity governed by
> established rules.
ICANN wants an application filed before the end of the year -- within
the next 30 days.
> Anyway, I see no reason why the application process and bylaws process
> can't proceed hand in hand. Thinking through the application requires the
> same rigorous thinking required to draft the bylaws.
Indeed. But we don't need bylaws, given that there are no plans
to separately incorporate. That is why we are concentrating on the
If we were creating a separate corporation, then things would be
different -- we would be somewhat more constrained to make things
perfect before we proceed. By taking the path of proposing the DNSO
as a part of ICANN we gain some flexibility -- we can leave some
details to be worked out with the ICANN board. Also, we are
automatically constrained to follow the ICANN rules concerning
transparent process etc etc.
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited",
email@example.com the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55