Kent and all, The only comment we have is on the last point that you made. The DNSO at www.dsno.org has really already disqualified itself as being part of the iCANN in that it has already violated the openness and transparency requirements. However the ICANN has yet to meet these requirements as set forth in the White Paper for that matter, so this may be a moot point if you are looking at this form that particular angle or prospective. Even if the DSNO at www.dnso.org did remove the "Participants List" and /or include anyone to subscribe FULLY to the Participants List, the damage is already partially done and cannot now be reversed from within the DNSO at www.dnso.org. It needs to be understood that every major mistake or lack of compliance in these matters has it's price. And in this case the price is very high, as are the stakes. If it were possible you could ask Sadam Hussain or some of his people that question and get a better feel for what that price can and will be. Kent Crispin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 10:24:10PM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote: > > > > Kent Crispin wrote: > > >The bylaws are (I believe) *deliberately* vague on this point. > > >Postel, Sims, and Co explicitly did not want to prejudge the > > >structure of the SOs. > > > > So then let's play this out. Assuming that dnso.org elects not to > > incorporate and succeeds in its goal of receiving ICANN recognition as > > the DNSO, what then? What is the legal status of the DNSO? Is it a formal > > part of ICANN? If so, how did it attain that status? Simply by virtue of > > the application being accepted? Does the ICANN Board pass a resolution > > making the successful applicant a division of ICANN? > > That would seem to be the most obvious solution. But, of course, > IANAL (that's "I am not a lawyer"). > > > Does the Board have an opinion on this? > > They have not articulated one at this point, to my knowledge. Reading > between the lines a bit, I get the impression that Mike Roberts has a > slight leaning toward all the SOs being separate organizations, but > he has also very carefully stated that there is no need that the SOs be > symmetric in this regard. > > > I've stated a preference for incorporating because it gives dnso.org more > > I have a slight preference the other way, but it seems to me that > the question needs a lot of exploration. > > > control over its legal status and does not leave important legal > > protection for its members to ICANN Board decisions that are beyond its > > control. > > What scenarios can you imagine where this would make a difference? > How likely are they? Wouldn't a member of the DNSO always have the > option of just leaving, if they thought the protections were > insufficient? Don't you imagine that the ICANN board will be very > interested in maintaining as much legal insulation as it possibly can > for ICANN and all its members? Wouldn't it be the case that almost > all suits against ICANN would name the DNSOcorp as well? > > My feeling is that the "legal protection" argument is weak. > > A better argument, I think, is the "convenience to ICANN" argument: > if the DNSO is a corp, then the recognition of the DNSO would > presumably be a contract between the two corporations. It would be > simpler to enter into such a contract; and it would be easier to get > out of such a contract. [Maybe. I am puzzled by the legal > implications of the fact that the DNSO selects 3 board members, and > I'm not sure how that fits into a contractual relationship.] > > Three arguments against come to mind: first, we are creating a huge > amount of unnecessary mechanism; second, by being a part if ICANN we > automatically meet all the transparency etc requirements, but there > are always possibilities of conflicting interpretation when there are > separate corporations; and third, there are a bunch of additional > issues involved in creation of a corporation -- eg, where should it > be incorporated? [probably not the US...]. > > Any comments on these points? > > -- > Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain 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
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature