[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ga] Letter from Mike Roberts

> Mr. Jim Rutt
> Dear Jim,
> 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
> this matter.

Which is why we threw not only NSI's people off the June 11th Names
Council teleconference, but also Michael Sondow, a qualified
observer from the Non-Commercial Constituency. Mr. Sondow has openly
opposed me. It's only fair, then, isn't it, that I take revenge on
Mr. Sondow by supporting Vint Cerf's smear campaign and kicking Mr.
Sondow off the teleconference?

> 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.

Of course, our friends in MCI and CORE can put as many as they want
on the Names Council: Theresa Swinehart and Susan Anthony from
MCI...Javier Sola, Ken Stubbs, Amadeu Abril i Abril, and three or
four other CORE directors... whatever. But for the people we don't
like, like NSI and the users, there's no room on the NC.

> 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

controlled exclusively by ISOC and CORE. What's more, the
supermajority that CORE has on the Names Council is fragile, since
we couldn't figure out any way to get CORE people elected from the
ccTLD constituency, and still are unsure that we can control all
three seats from the NCDNHC. So to let NSI have three seats on the
Names Council is too dangerous for us. 

> 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 


> Since this is the second letter from Network Solutions which does
> not accept

ISOC/CORE's dictates,

> the ICANN Board must now do what 

ISOC and CORE have told us to do.

> 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.

We had planned on some such change in any case, mind you, because
all these intrusions of people who aren't under the sway of ISOC and
CORE have frankly become very irritating to us.

> 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

of pretending to be interested in what people have to say.

<snip bylaw blah-blah-blah>

> 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

unless it serves to give ISOC and CORE yet more power than they
already have.

> All of us have more important things to do

like keeping a jump ahead of the Department of Justice.

> 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.

This would not only quell the fears of CORE and ISOC that they might
some day lose a vote of the Names Council requiring a two-thirds
majority, but make life for all of us much simpler.

> Sincerely,
> - Mike
> Michael M. Roberts
> Interim President and Chief Executive Officer