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

Comment ccNSOAG4:
  • To: "'reform-comments@xxxxxxxxx'" <reform-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Comment ccNSOAG4:
  • From: "R.F.Kearns" <R.F.Kearns@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:59:33 -0000

The 'clarification' reads:
"The ultimate position if the Board does not accept the ccNSO recommendation
is that no policy is made. In other words, if the ccNSO makes a
recommendation and, after following the process, a supermajority of the
ICANN Board still believes that the policy is not in the best interests of
the ICANN community or ICANN then the status quo is maintained and no new
policy is recommended."

So if a supermajority of all the CC domain managers support a proposition,
the ICANN Board can veto it.  This is intolerable - you are applying the
concepts of 1776 Constitutional Monarchy.  

Yes, there should be a safety net if the Board believes that the decision of
the ccSO is perverse or the process was flawed.  I recommend the process
used in countries with functioning Senate / House of Lords systems, where
the Board can decline once and once only.  It must give its reasons clearly
and invite the ccSO community to consider them in a further ballot after
(say) 12 months.  If the second vote again  provides a majority in favour of
the proposition, the Board shall be obliged to accept it.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy