If that in fact is not the case, as it now appears, that sheds an entirely
different light on the question.
Antony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-transition@itu.int [mailto:owner-transition@itu.int]On
> Behalf Of Michael Sondow
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:54 PM
> To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; Carsten Schiefner
> Cc: discuss; participants@dnso.org; transition@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: Fw: SO structure - private
>
>
> Eberhard, Carsten and all-
>
> Just because the (potential) PSO and ASO may be incorporating, that
> doesn't mean the DNSO must follow them. We can choose not to if we wish.
> Carsten's right, there was a majority in Monterrey for not
> incorporating. It's not just a question of legal accountability,
> although that is an important question, but also of whether the DNSO
> wants to set itself as a separate organization from ICANN and "pull the
> teeth" of ICANN's authority.
>
> Furthermore, incorporating separately means the memberships of ICANN and
> of the DNSO are separate. This is a very big step to take, because the
> ICANN bylaws place the SOs within its membership structure, don't
> forget. If the SOs are separate corporate entities, they must not only
> have separate bylaws but a separate membership and a separate BoD. This
> is setting up an adversarial relationship with ICANN, and weakens it
> considerably. This may be a bad thing to do, at this point.
>
> Autonomy? For what purpose? ICANN will still have the authority, if the
> USG continues its present course. And that course depends on arriving at
> a consolidated self-governing body, not four or five different bodies.
> The SOs were envisaged as advisory councils for ICANN, not as distinct
> organizations. How can the authority to decide on domain name, protocol,
> and addressing policy be made by both ICANN and the SOs? Maybe what some
> people want is for only the SOs to make policy, separately from ICANN,
> but then the ICANN bylaws must be rewritten. This means going back to
> where we were in June.
>
> The lawyers for the PSO and ASO counselled them to incorporate,
> apparently. But we must ask ourselves why they did this. Was it for the
> good of ICANN and the good of the Internet, or was it perhaps because
> the lawyers wanted to represent the SOs and get nice fat fees for
> defending the SOs when they get sued? Were these lawyers Internet
> people, ware of the complexities of the present situation and its
> history? Aware that hundreds or thousands of people have been trying to
> find a consensus approach to the NewCo? It doesn't sound like it.
>
> Frankly, if I were counsel to ICANN, I would tell them not to recognize
> these SOs that are incorporating separately, if my interest was in
> seeing the ICANN accomplish its mission of focussing all the disparate
> contingents and finding a way of making policy from consensus. If, on
> the contrary, my interest was in legally protecting the ICANN Board,
> sure, it's great for the SOs to be accountable separately from ICANN.
> But it could be bad for the Internet, and it's certainly not what
> everyone involved in these disputes for so long has been hoping for. It
> is, in a way, institutionalizing the failure of ICANN before it has a
> chance to get started.
>
> We should keep in mind, I think, that these self-appointed SOs are
> illegitimate. Their legitimacy comes from ICANN, not from incorporating.
> The ORSC, for instance, incorporated when they wrote their bylaws, which
> they sent to the NTIA, but that didn't make them ipso facto a competitor
> with ICANN for recognition as the NewCo. Likewise the IETF and whoever
> has incorporated as the ASO, the registries and such, are making a huge
> pretense by incorporating as the PSO and ASO. There has been no open
> process by which their memberships and bylaws have been decided. By what
> right do they incorporate as SOs? If ICANN has been created by a less
> than open process, these SOs are far worse, and have gone against the
> intention of ICANN's bylaws, which have been accepted as a workable
> basis for the NewCo by the USG and almost everyone else. By
> incorporating, these groups who now call themselves the PSO and ASO have
> become outlaw SOs, not because they separate themselves from ICANN but
> because they have yet no right to be the SOs, which were created by the
> ICANN bylaws and must follow the ICANN bylaws in order to be legitimate.
> The DNSO, on the other hand, has never done this; it was not formed to
> incorporate as the DNSO but in order to present a proposal to the ICANN,
> in keeping with the spirit of the process that is under way, and derives
> its openness, legitimacy, and self-respect from this position.
>
> Speaking for myself, I like to do things in a straightforward way.
> Either I go along with ICANN and help to influence them to realize their
> mission, which means creating a DNSO that's part of ICANN, that IS the
> ICANN, or I join an organization - the DNSO or some other - that's
> opposed to or competing with the ICANN. But I don't play this divisive
> game and ruin ICANN's chances of succeeding.
>
> Personally, I think that the people who organized this DNSO that we are
> involved in have had the right approach - to follow the structure set up
> in the ICANN's bylaws - and see if it can be made to work. To start
> creating separate entities without open process, causing legal conflicts
> and membership confrontations (who will be a member of ICANN and who a
> member of the DNSO, if they are separate?) at this stage is, for me, a
> big mistake.
>
>
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit:
> >
> > In message <3666DE4B.9FF53C4F@tcpip-gmbh.de>, Carsten Schiefner writes:
> > > Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> >
> > > > I think too, we should incorporate (in Delaware or
> somewhere similar).
> > >
> > > Could someone please tell me what the reason is for this change in
> > > mind cause AFAIR in Monterrey almost everybody has agreed _not_ to
> > > incorporate.
> >
> > I was always for incorporating :-)-O
> >
> > It's not an issue actually, with regards to be safe from law suits,
> > whether DNSO is part of ICANN or independent. The persons running it
> > must be protected and are in both modes if I am not mistaken. But it
> > will give us greater autonomy. And if the other two do it...
> >
> > el
>
> --
> ============================================================
> Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
> inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about
> "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.
>
> ----- Jon Postel, 1994.
> ============================================================
> International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU)
> http://www.iciiu.org iciiu@iciiu.org
> ============================================================
>