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

Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

Michael Froomkin wrote:
> In light of the comment quoted below, I would be grateful if you could
> lay to rest once and for all an allegation I have seen often repeated:
> It is alleged that the pNC refused to allow certain duly selected
> representatives of the gTLD constituency to attend a telephone meeting
> held a few weeks ago.
> Is this factually inaccurate?
> Were the people not actual delegates?
> Or, was the refusal to allow their participation not a violation of the
> bylaws?

Hi Michael,

Sorry to see that holidays are not doing any good. Just try to imagine how
stressed the rest of us, without vacations, must be under this heath!!!!!

Yes, indeed, your assumptions are prefectly inaccurate. Let's faint you really
don't know it and try again:

* Singapore and Berlin meetings were unanimous (well...) in the feeling that
no single org should be able to appoint more than one NC rep. NSI did not
disopute this.

* NSI designated three reps (Don Telage, Richard Sexton and Joop Teernstra),
The BoDasked them to reconsider the decision and appoint only one, and
representing gTLD interests.

* Durning a NC telconf, NC ws instructed by the BoD and ICANN counsel not to
allow the three reps mentioned above in. So the preson chairng that
teleconference (Javier) stated that only one of them could stay, and told the
other two to leave. If I am not mistaken the three of them left the teleconference.

* NSI informed again that they had apointed three gTLD NC reps (Don Telage,
David Johnson and Phil Sbarbaro). As the Byalwas were clear in their spirti
but open to interpetation to some extent (and this is also my perosnal
opinion) the ICANN counsel on one side, and the NC on the other (decided to
allow the three gTLD (NSI) reps in as full `NC members. Most of us noted that
this was clarly against community consensus, passt compromises and any logi.
But as the Bylaws "could" perhaps be read as allowing NSI to appont three
reps, well, it was not that wise to make a battle over it (pleae note the
diffeent slate of reps they rpesented the second time, and that at lest the
second version abided to the principle of gTLD interest represntation...).
ICANN BoD decided that they would immediatly present a darft amendment of the
Bylaws to bring things back to reason. Ie, to make clear that no matter how
open to interpetaion certain language is, no single corporation would be able
to appoint three diffetnt NC reps, be that within one Cionsituency or differnt
ones. You have the propsoed amendment open for comments on ICANN website.

Pas de chasse aux sorcieres, my friend. Life tends to be boring, you know....