[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Letter from Mike Roberts re: gTLD Constituency Group
Read this carefully. If I am not mistaken this removes the rules
about NC members from the same company/organization and is trying to
hide that it is doing that under the disguise of a "problem" with
This would seem to me to be more of a justification for their letting
CORE/ISOC capture the DNSO NC.
I maybe wrong here, so some of you who have a bit more time today read
it and check it out and let us know one way or the other.
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:47:39 -0400, "Andrew McLaughlin"
>July 9, 1999
>Mr. Jim Rutt
>Chief Executive Officer
>Network Solutions, Inc.
>505 Huntmar Park Drive
>Herndon, Virginia 20170
>Thanks for stepping into the current controversy concerning representation
>on the DNSO Names Council from the gTLD constituency. You can appreciate,
>given my prior correspondence with Don Telage, that ICANN is attempting to
>reach and maintain a position of fairness to all the parties concerned in
>As NSI's representatives at the Berlin ICANN meetings have surely informed
>you, there appeared to be a near-unanimous sentiment expressed at the public
>ICANN meeting on May 26 that no one company should be able to place more
>than one representative on the Names Council. The peculiar situation of the
>gTLD Constituency Group -- at the moment, NSI is the only member -- means
>that, absent compliance with the Board's request, a single company would
>select one-seventh of the members of the Names Council. It seemed clear in
>Berlin that the community consensus, with which I and the Board agree, was
>that no one company should have that level of influence in a body that is
>designed to be broadly representative of the various worldwide communities
>of interest that constitute the DNSO.
>Your letter of last week, which nominates an employee plus two of your
>lawyers to the Names Council, is not consistent with the views of the
>community. Since this is the second letter from Network Solutions which does
>not accept the consensus view, the ICANN Board must now do what it is
>supposed to do: follow the community consensus. In this case that means to
>proceed with its stated intention to amend the pertinent portions of the
>Bylaws in the absence of your voluntary agreement to limit your
>representation to one member.
>In the next few days, we will post the following proposed amendment to the
>ICANN Bylaws for public comment in accordance with our normal procedures:
> RESOLVED, that Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of the
> Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:
> "The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance
> with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency
> recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth
> in Section 3 of this Article. Any dispute about whether any
> such representative is a proper member of the NC shall be
> resolved by, or at the direction of, the Board."
> FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws
> of the Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the
> "Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to represent
> that Constituency on the NC, no two of which may be, except with the
> consent of the Board, residents of the same Geographic Region, as
> defined in Article V, Section 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
> no Constituency may have more representatives on the NC than there
> are members of the Constituency. Nominations within each Constituency
> may be made by any member of the Constituency, but no such member may
> make more than one nomination in any single Constituency."
> FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of
> the Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:
> "Unless shorterned by the Board in its recognition of a Constituency,
> the term of office for each member of the NC shall be two years,
> subject to earlier removal by the Constituency that selected such
> member or by a three-fourths majority vote of all members of the
>The other members of the ICANN Board and I do not believe that amending our
>Bylaws to eliminate avenues for the pursuit of special interest objectives
>is a useful exercise. All of us have more important things to do. As a new
>player, and one committed to making the system work for everyone by your
>recent public statement, it would be a valuable contribution to making the
>DNSO successful if you accepted the consensus view and voluntarily agreed to
>name only one member to the Names Council.
>Michael M. Roberts
>Interim President and Chief Executive Officer
>cc: DNSO Names Council
> DNSO General Assembly
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: email@example.com Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)