ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] ICANN Board unanimously approves .biz/.info/.org registry agreements by 13-0


At 11:41 AM 12.12.2006 '?.' -0500, kidsearch wrote:
Please define: Bottom-up Consensus as it applies to ICANN and the issues it faces.

That's a more philosophical question; sometimes when I have time, I may write on it, but in the meantime, check Wikipedia for this, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making (and note - I didn't say I agree with this article; I am just giving it a starting point to read on this). btw, this is also from the Wikipedia: "ICANN was charged with "Operating in a bottom up, consensus driven, democratic manner" by the US Department of Commerce in the Memorandum of Understanding that set up the relationship between ICANN and the US Government. However, the attempts that ICANN made to set up an organizational structure that would allow wide input from the global Internet community did not work well; the At-Large constituency and direct election of board members by the global Internet community were soon abandoned "
(off topic: This is a good task for people like you - to see how to provide solution to the problems with the first elections, and see whether elections can be implemented again)


Please list; Your reasons that you believe that the renewal agreements should have passed even though it went against the public comments.

This is easy: I've reviewed the arguments against and pro, and I've made my choice to vote in favour, I believe that's in the interest of keeping the Internet (and in particular the DNS) secure and stable.
I also agree with Susan Crawford and Peter Dengate, and other of my former colleagues have said last Friday (see quotes below). They were in the room, and could present that better than me, over the phone, but more or less I share their views. I may be even more pragmatic then they are.
The Board has postponed voting on this issue for quite a while; We waited for inputs from this, and waited for inputs from that, and waited for inputs from GNSO, from you-name-it. And I am sure there are people who were pretty happy with this waiting. They would have loved for the Board to not take a decision. At the same time, on the other hand you have the interests of all normal registrants (there are normal, and there are commercial ones).


And in general, some people were against the renewal. But some were against the .xxx, and some were against the .com, and some were against the .net, and some were/are going to be against anything. There are always people that are for and against. And we always have to take a decision, which some people will not be happy with. I believe that once the vote is taken (yet unanimously!), whoever is not happy with the decision could try to change it (see the reaction to the .xxx decision), or should accept it and move forward. What some people on this list want to do, is what I call history - they

Let me also quote something Susan said in the last Board meeting, which is also relevant here http://www.icann.org/meetings/saopaulo/captioning-board-old-08dec06.htm :
"Pricing is not on the constrained list of topics set forth in these existing contracts, and so we couldn't, through a consensus policy, create a binding, mandatory, global policy for gTLD registries that we would call a consensus policy."
and
"So bottom line here, I see no reason for the board to stand in the way of these three operators, given the existence of the com and net agreements, and given their desire to be treated equally and our contractual obligation not to single out any registry operator for disparate treatment."
and Peter:
"We have waited, I think, now, for some time, and I have been a board member who has urged the board to hold making a decision on these contracts at the last three or four times I have come forward and have supported the idea of waiting for the GNSO policy development process and for obtaining the economic advice, which is also a part of, I think, our strategic plan, to be able to give good economic input into our strategic planning.
But at the same time, we have been faced with these commercial imperatives that our contracts require us to give equal treatment to the other registry operators. And the time line that's been moving forward."


Now that I have satisfied your interest for my motive, lets talk about what the directors could/should do. Perhaps they may be reviewed by some lawyers, and found not 100 % in accordance with California laws, but that's how I understand the duties of a director. Whoever understands them differently, could try to run for the Board, be elected, and serve.


231. (a) A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. (b) In performing the duties of a director, a director shall be entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, in each case prepared or presented by: (1) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented; (2) Counsel, independent accountants or other persons as to matters which the director believes to be within such person's professional or expert competence; or (3) A committee of the board upon which the director does not serve, as to matters within its designated authority, which committee the director believes to merit confidence, so long as, in any such case, the director acts in good faith, after reasonable inquiry when the need therefor is indicated by the circumstances and without knowledge that would cause such reliance to be unwarranted.


I give up trying to understand how can anyone blame any of the directors for not following the law.
ICANN Directors do even more than required by the law of California - they obtain information through tens of other channels - reviews, SOs, mailing lists, documents prepared by... etc., etc.
I doubt any director would not take seriously the duty of inquiry, for example. I've tried to be sufficiently informed in order to make decisions on behalf of ICANN, and participate in the Board work. One of the reasons I decided not to run for the Board again actually was that because of this commitment of mine, I didn't have enough time to do my actual work, and take care of my family. I've always had access to corporate records and premises. As a member of the Audit Committee, I've been in Marina del Rey, and this has been presented in our committee reports. The result of our activity is seen in every committee report, published on the web site, as well. It's interesting to note that not so many people would actually show up for the ICANN meetings, where we were reading the reports. That lead to a natural change - to publish the reports, instead of read them to an (almost) empty hall.
Staff reports have been presented to us on many occasions, and they have faced Q&A which is not easy, when you have 15 people, from 5 continents, asking all tough questions.
There's more to be discussed, but I think I've spent enough time for the day in this list :)





Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com

check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>