[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
PAB Re: [Fwd: DNSO Status Report and Draft Bylaws Changes]
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:57:16 -0800
- From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
- Subject: PAB Re: [Fwd: DNSO Status Report and Draft Bylaws Changes]
On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 09:01:36AM -0500, mheltzer@inta.org wrote:
>
> I cannot open to the site. I even went directly to ICANN's site and could not
> get on. Can anyone send me the document?
>
> Heltzer, INTA
The URL is incorrect. It should have a "dnso" in it, as follows:
http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnsoupdate.html
The interesting document is
http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnsobylaws1.html
I am appending it in case you still have problems:
================================================================
STAFF DRAFT: DNSO AMENDMENTS TO ICANN BYLAWS
March 15, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a staff draft of proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws
designed to establish the framework for the creation of the three Supporting
Organizations called for in the Bylaws as originally adopted. The approach
set forth in this draft assumes that the Supporting Organizations will be
policy advisory bodies within ICANN, with the additional characteristics
that (1) they each select three Directors of ICANN and (2) there is a
presumption (rebuttable if they fail to meet the criteria set forth in the
Bylaws) that their recommendations will be approved by the Board. If the
approach reflected in this draft is finally adopted, the actions of those
participating would presumably be subject to the insurance and other
protections afforded ICANN officers, directors and employees so long as they
were within the legitimate scope of the Supporting Organization's
activities.
This is a staff draft, but it rests on the Board decisions taken in
Singapore and the detailed discussion of many of the concepts adopted and
reflected in the DNSO Formation Concepts statement adopted by the ICANN
Board of Directors on March 4, 1999. Comments on the draft are welcome, at
so-comment@icann.org. The ICANN Board of Directors plans to vote on this
proposal in a special telephone meeting on March 31, 1999.
In order to assist in understanding the Bylaws, the following FAQ's are
provided.
1. Were any substantive changes made in the general powers and
responsibilities of the Supporting Organizations as set forth in the
original Bylaws?
Some wording changes were made, but they are made for clarity and not
intended to cause any substantive change.
2. How are the initial constituencies to be formed?
The assumption is that they will self-form, and will each collectively
decide on membership or participatory criteria and standards. A
constituency-based organization, with no absolute limit on the number
of recognized constituencies, has an inherent tension between the size
and scope of each constituency and the number of constituencies. For
example, in the event that the "commercial and business entities"
constituency limits the type or size of organizations or points of view
that can join that constituency, there will likely be pressure for the
formation of a new constituency that provides a place for those
excluded. If, on the other hand, that constituency allows membership
by any entity that applies, it may become unwieldy and perhaps not even
representative in the way originally contemplated. The staff believes
that the way to deal with this tension is to allow each constituency to
make its own determinations on these issues, and to deal with any
extreme or inappropriate limitations on an ad hoc basis, either in the
approval process for each constituency or ultimately through the
recognition of additional constituencies.
3. How will the nomination and election processes be conducted, both for
the representatives of each constituency to the Names Council and for the
ICANN Directors to be selected by the DNSO?
The staff believes that these processes should initially be left to the
constituencies and the Names Council, subject to the ultimate review
and approval by the Board.
4. How exactly will the General Assembly function?
Again, the details of the General Assembly operation should be left in
the first instance to the Names Council, subject to the ultimate review
and approval of the Board. These details are important, but in keeping
with the bottom-up nature of the organization, they should at least
initially be the product of interaction among those most directly
involved. The critical issue at this point is the formation of the
initial constituencies -- some of these other decisions should be
deferred until after the initial constituencies have been formed and a
Names Council has been created.
5. Is there a deadline for constituency formation?
The staff believes that the Board should announce that it will act on
the recognition of initial constituencies and, if possible, the Names
Council and General Assembly at the Berlin meeting in May, and that the
DNSO should begin operation with whatever constituencies have been
formed, recognized and selected representatives to the Names Council by
that time. Obviously, this may result in something less than a full
Names Council complement at the beginning, but given the press of time,
it seems desirable to set artificial deadlines to encourage early
action on the formation of the constituencies. The staff will arrange
meeting space in Berlin for any constituencies-in-formation requesting
it in advance.
6. How do the geographic diversity requirements of the ICANN bylaws apply
to the Supporting Organizations?
This is a difficult question for which there is no answer as yet. The
Staff Draft states that no two of the ICANN directors selected by a
Supporting Organization may be from the same geographic region, and
that no two of the Names Council representatives from each constituency
should be from the same geographic region. This may or may not be the
optimal way to deal with this issue, and the staff invites reactions.
The Staff Draft does not resolve the complex problem of how the rules
applying to the At Large members of the Board -- yet to be determined
-- will interact with those applying to the Directors selected by the
Supporting Organizations. Quite frankly, the current Bylaws provisions
are probably not practically workable, but this is a broader question
that must be dealt with by the Board; this Staff Draft simply leaves
that issue unresolved.
7. Do all of the procedural provisions (notice and comment,
reconsideration, independent review, etc.) of the ICANN Bylaws automatically
apply to the DNSO?
The Staff Draft specifically provides, in Article VI, Section 3(a),
that the policies and procedures of the Supporting Organizations
prevail over any inconsistent provisions of other articles of the ICANN
Bylaws. This approach recognizes that the Supporting Organizations
are different bodies with different purposes than ICANN itself and that
the Supporting Organizations are each likely to be unique
organizations, and allows the Board and the Supporting Organizations to
tailor the appropriate policies and procedures for each Supporting
Organization individually.
8. Are members of the DNSO Names Council eligible for selection by the DNSO
as ICANN Directors?
The Staff Draft does not exclude anyone from eligibility for selection
as a DNSO-designated ICANN Director. Such Directors must be chosen
from among those nominated by the General Assembly, pursuant to
procedures to be determined (and approved by the Board), and must have
the majority support of the Names Council. Since, as is required of
all Directors by Article V, Section 8 of the Bylaws, the Directors
selected by the Supporting Organizations serve as individuals with a
duty to act in the best interests of the Corporation, there seemed no
reason to exclude any person from nomination by the General Assembly or
consideration by the Names Council (other than those excluded by
Article V, Section 5).
9. How will the DNSO be funded?
As stated by the Board in its DNSO Formation Concepts statement,
released in Singapore, the DNSO should be self-supporting and not
funded from general ICANN revenues.
10. How will members of the General Assembly or constituencies that do not
agree with the decisions of the Names Council make their voice heard?
First of all, the Names Council is charged, in Article VI-B, Section 2
(b) and Section 2 (c) with making sure that it has in fact heard all
responsible voices on any issue before it acts. Second, Section 4
provides for a General Assembly that is open to "all who are willing to
contribute to the work of the DNSO." Finally, the Board will both have
access to the complete record of all proceedings and comments, and will
not act on any DNSO recommendation that meets the standards of Article
III, Section 3, without following the procedures set forth in that
Section. In combination, these procedures will ensure that all those
who want to be heard on subjects involving the DNSO will have that
opportunity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The following should be substituted for the entirety of current Article VI
of the current ICANN Bylaws]
NEW ARTICLE VI: SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Section 1: DESCRIPTION
(a) The Board, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Board,
may create advisory bodies known as Supporting Organizations. Once
created, a Supporting Organization can be disbanded only upon a
two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the members of the Board.
(b) The initial Supporting Organizations shall be the following:
1. The Address Supporting Organization ("ASO");
2. The Domain Names Supporting Organization ("DNSO"); and
3. The Protocol Supporting Organization ("PSO").
Section 2: RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS
(a) Each Supporting Organization shall select Directors to those seats
on the Board designated, pursuant to Section 4 of Article V, to be
filled by that Supporting Organization. No two Directors selected by
any particular Supporting Organization shall be citizens of countries
located in the same Geographic Region, as defined in Article V, Section
6.
(b) The Supporting Organizations shall serve as advisory bodies to the
Board, with the primary responsibility for developing and recommending
substantive policies regarding those matters falling within their
specific responsibilities, as described in this Article VI (including
VI-A, VI-B and VI-C).
(c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not
received from a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization,
if any, with primary responsibility for the area to which the proposal
relates for initial consideration and recommendation to the Board.
(d) Any recommendation forwarded to the Board by a Supporting
Organization shall be simultaneously transmitted to all other
Supporting Organizations so that each Supporting Organization may
comment to the Board regarding the implications of such a
recommendation on activities within their individual scope of primary
responsibility.
(e) Subject to the provisions of Article III, Section 3, the Board
shall accept the recommendations of a Supporting Organization if the
Board finds that the recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of,
and is in the best interest of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with
the Articles and Bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and open
processes (including participation by representatives of other
Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4) is not reasonably
opposed by any other Supporting Organization. No recommendation of a
Supporting Organization shall be adopted unless the votes in favor of
adoption would be sufficient for adoption by the Board without taking
account of either the Directors selected by the Supporting Organization
or their votes.
(f) If the Board declines to accept any such recommendation of a
Supporting Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the
Supporting Organization for further consideration, along with a
statement of the reasons it declines to accept the recommendation. If,
after reasonable efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation
from the Supporting Organization that it finds meets the standards of
Section 2(e) of this Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any
disputes or disagreements between Supporting Organizations, receives
conflicting recommendations from Supporting Organizations, and the
Board finds there is a justification for prompt action, the Board may
initiate, amend or modify and then approve a specific policy.
(g) Nothing in this Section 2 is intended to limit the powers of the
Board or the Corporation to act on matters not within the scope of
primary responsibility of a Supporting Organization or to take actions
that the Board finds are necessary or appropriate to further the
purposes of the Corporation.
Section 3: SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION FORMATION
(a) The initial Supporting Organizations contemplated by Section 1(b)
of this Article VI shall be formed through community consensus, as
reflected in applications or similar proposals to create an initial
Supporting Organization. The Board shall recognize that consensus
through the publication and subsequent adoption, by a two-thirds (2/3)
vote of all members of the Board, of amendments to these Bylaws
establishing the Supporting Organization. Such amendments shall, in
the Board's judgment, (1) be consistent with these Bylaws; (2) ensure
that the full range of views of all interested parties will be fairly
and adequately reflected in the decisions of the Supporting
Organization; and (3) serve the purposes of the Corporation. Upon the
adoption of such Bylaw amendments, the Supporting Organization shall be
deemed to exist for purposes of these Bylaws. Once accepted by the
Board through the amendment of these Bylaws and the failure of the
Board to disapprove any subsequent decisions by the Supporting
Organizations or their constituent bodies, the procedures of the
Supporting Organizations shall prevail in the case of any inconsistency
with any other provisions of these Bylaws.
(b) The Board may create additional Supporting Organizations if it
determines, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Board,
that it would serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event of a
staff recommendation that an additional Supporting Organization should
be created, the Board will post the staff recommendation, including a
detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set
a reasonable time for the receipt of public comments, and not make a
final decision to seek the consensus development of such additional
Supporting Organization until it has taken into account all such
comments.
NEW ARTICLE VI-A: THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
[RESERVED]
NEW ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
Section 1: DESCRIPTION
(a) The DNSO shall advise the Board with respect to policy issues
relating to top-level domains.
(b) The DNSO shall consist of (i) a Names Council ("NC"), consisting
of representatives of constituencies as described in Section 3 of this
Article VI-B ("Constituencies") elected by those Constituencies and
(ii) a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all interested
individuals and entities.
Section 2: THE NAMES COUNCIL
(a) The NC will consist of three representatives from each
Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth
in Section 3 of this Article.
(b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building
process of the DNSO. It shall adopt such procedures and policies as it
sees fit to carry out that responsibility, including the designation of
such research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies
of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry out the substantive
work of the DNSO. Such bodies shall include at least one
representative from each recognized Constituency, and shall provide
appropriate means, as determined by the NC, for input and such
participation as is practicable under the circumstances by other
interested parties. Any reports or recommendations presented to the NC
by such bodies shall be simultaneously posted on a website accessible
by the public for public review and comment; absent clear
justification, which shall be publicly stated at the time of any
action, the NC shall not act on any report or recommendation until a
reasonable time for public comment has passed and the NC has reviewed
and evaluated all public comments received. The NC is responsible for
ensuring that all responsible views have been heard and considered
prior to a decision by the NC.
(c) Constituencies or others may propose that the NC consider specific
domain name policies or recommendations. If the NC undertakes
consideration of a domain name topic, or if a Constituency so requests,
the NC shall designate one or more research or drafting committees, or
working groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate the topic, and
shall set a time frame for the conclusion of the project. Following
the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a body, the NC may
accept the report or recommendation for submission to the
Constituencies for comment and consultation, or return the report or
recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work.
After the report or recommendation is submitted to the Constituencies
and the comment period for the Constituencies has expired, the NC shall
evaluate the comments to determine whether there is a basis for a
consensus recommendation to the Board.
(d) If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC determine that the
DNSO process has produced a community consensus, that consensus
position shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus recommendation,
along with all materials or other information that could reasonably be
relevant to the Board's review of that determination, including (but
not limited to) the dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the
NC. If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
members of the NC determine that the DNSO process has produced a
community consensus, that position may be forwarded to the Board as a
NC recommendation, along with statements of majority and minority
views, and any separate or dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of
the NC. Any proposed recommendation that is not supported by an
affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) of the members of the NC shall be
returned to the body from which it originated, or shall be assigned to
a new body, for further work. The NC is responsible for ensuring that
the Board is informed of any significant implementation or operational
concerns expressed by any responsible party.
(e) The NC shall forward to the Board, from among those persons
nominated by the GA, its selection(s) for the Director(s) to fill any
open Board position(s) reserved for the DNSO. Any such selection(s)
must have the affirmative votes of at least one-half (1/2) of all the
members of the NC.
(f) The term of office for each member of the NC shall be two years.
(g) No more than one officer, director or employee of a corporation or
other organization (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) shall
serve on the NC at any given time. Service as a member of the NC shall
not disqualify a person from being selected by the DNSO as one of the
Directors of the Corporation it is entitled to select.
(h) Meetings of the NC may be held in person, via videoconference or
teleconference, at the discretion of the NC, so long as all members of
the NC participating can speak to and hear one another. Advance notice
of such meetings shall be posted on a website that is available for
public access and, if reasonably practicable, at least 14 days in
advance of the meeting. Except where determined by a majority vote of
members of the NC present that a closed session is appropriate,
meetings shall be open to physical or electronic attendance by all
interested persons. The NC shall post minutes of its meetings to a
website that is available for public access as soon as practicable
following the meeting, and no later than 21 days following the meeting.
(i) The NC shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually.
(j) The NC shall establish, subject to review and approval by the
Board, an appropriate mechanism for review of grievances and/or
reconsideration.
(k) [RESERVED FOR CONFLICTS POLICY IF NECESSARY]
Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES
(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall
be excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of
participation in another Constituency. The Board shall recognize a
Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in (b)
below) by a majority vote, whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to
exist for purposes of these Bylaws.
(b) The initial Consituencies shall consist of (in alphabetical
order):
1. ccTLD registries;
2. commercial and business entities;
3. gTLD registries;
4. ISP and connectivity providers;
5. non-commercial domain name holders;
6. registrars; and
7. trademark, other intellectual property and anti-counterfeiting
interests.
(c) Members of each Constituency shall select three individuals to
represent that Constituency on the NC, no two of which may be citizens
of countries in the same Geographic Region, as defined in Article V,
Section 6. 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; provided that this limitation
shall not apply to any Constituency with less than three members.
(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will
be posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The
Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or
on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the
purposes of the Corporation. In the event of a staff recommendation
that the Board should recognize a new constituency, the Board shall
post that recommendation, including a detailed explanation of why such
action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public
comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new
Constituency until after reviewing all comments received.
Section 4: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the
DNSO, and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work
of the DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who have
a knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO,
including work item proposal and development, discussion of work items,
draft document preparation, and participation in research and drafting
committees and working groups.
(b) The GA shall meet at least once a year, if possible in conjunction
with regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. To the maximum extent
practicable, all meetings should be available for online attendance as
well as physical attendance.
(c) The costs of GA meetings shall be the responsibility of the DNSO,
which may levy an equitable, cost-based fee on GA attendees to recoup
those costs. There shall be no other fees required to participate in
the GA.
(d) The GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC
and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those seats
reserved for the DNSO.
NEW ARTICLE VI-C: THE PROTOCOL SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
[RESERVED]
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain