[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - RevisedAgenda
> > > That is, a committee composed only of NC members can rewrite
> > > anything. A committee of the *whole* NC can rewrite anything, or come
> > > up with something from scratch. The idea that the NC "can't change
> > > a single comma" is a pure fantasy.
> > You forget that the "consensus" that the NC must discover is based on
> > something more than themselves.
> Karl, I haven't forgotten anything. I am just refuting the utter
> nonsense you have been spreading that the NC "can't change a single
Please cite your authority, with precision, with specificity, by chapter
and verse of the ICANN bylaws.
As you will find when you undertake your futile effort is that the NC is
there merely to manage the process of creating a consensus. The
substantive work occurs in other elements of the DNSO. It says so right
there in Article VI-B, Section 2(b).
The NC does have a few decision powers over a few enumerated and limited
> > They are obligated to look at all
> > elements. Thus if they try to usurp the system by forming their own
> > captive drafting committee to twart a consensus, they will be quite
> > clearly showing that they are working in directy opposition to their
> > obligation to recognize all the sources of opinion.
> And if that happens, it is the responsibility of the ICANN Board to
> note the objections. The GA has no bylaws-derived power in this
> matter at all. The responsibility lies in the NC, not the GA.
> The populist oversight in this structure comes from the members of
> ICANN, not the GA.
So you say.
The ICANN bylaws say the contrary.
This is one of the reaons we need formalized process. The memory of the
pariticpants is too conviently flexible.
> > As is very clear from the bylaws the NC is merely there to measure whether
> > a consensus exists, not to create or fabricate one of their own liking.
> No, it's not clear at all
Read Article VI-B, Section 2(b). If you think there is other language
that is relevant, you have the opportunity to cite it, an opportunity that
I might add, of which you have never availed yourself despite repeated
Per Article VI-B, Section 2(b), the function of the NC is merely to manage
the consensus building process and to let "research or drafting
committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA...carry out the
substantive work of the DNSO".
One can quibble about whether "research or drafting committees" are part
of the NC or the GA; that language is ambiguous, the draftsman was sloppy.
But there is no doubt whatsoever about the language "working groups and
other bodies of the GA". Those are certainly part of the GA, not the NC.
And we are setting the procedures for those elements of the GA.
And, since the NC merely manages the consensus building process, it is not
itself part of that process except insofar as its players step into the
GA (and its working groups and "other bodies") and debate, on equal terms,
with everybody else.
> > Of course, we keep hearing statements how this this non-expert NC must
> > have unlimited power to rewrite and overturn the work product, the
> > consensus work product I might add, of the experts gathered in the GA.
> Indeed, the NC DOES have the ability to overturn and rewrite the work
> product of a GA WG
As usual, you make an assertion but don't cite authority. As far as I am
concerned you are once more simply making unpleasant noises.
>, and it is NECESSARY that it have that power.
How so? Will the DNSO collapse if the NC is limited to merely what it
says in the ICANN bylaws? I doubt it. In fact, it seems plausible for
the NC to simply manage the consensus building process.
> is perfectly possible that a WG could produce a result that was
> completely unacceptable to the constituencies
"completely unacceptable". So what. They are free to participate in the
You are suggesting that a Names Council member throw aside the clear
duties in the ICANN bylaws in favor of advocating a private agenda.
Under your logic we don't need a General Assembly at all as it would have
Fortunately, the clear language of the ICANN bylaws, which I have
mentioned several times is against you.