Everybody, I think, agrees with this.
> And I go further to assert that option "(a)" should be preferred.
> However, the world seems to be moving towards "(b)".
I prefer option a, as well, because it seems intrinsically less
wasteful. It is my belief that once three or four major issues are
resolved, interest in ICANN will decline tremendously. ICANN as a
steady state activity is pretty boring.
> > Part of the problem here is that the ICANN Bylaws suggest that ICANN will
> > "recognize" an SO and that it will review "applications for recognition."
> > This certainly suggests that SOs may be pre-existing entities (whether
> > corporations or not).
>
> They will be pre-existing as measured from the time of the recognition.
> However, they are not pre-existing as measured by the creation of ICANN
> itself.
>
> > It is also not clear (at least from my reading of the ICANN Bylaws) that
> > ICANN "recognition" is tantamount to becoming a formal part of ICANN.
>
> Yes, it is very fuzzy.
The bylaws are (I believe) *deliberately* vague on this point.
Postel, Sims, and Co explicitly did not want to prejudge the
structure of the SOs.
> As is the notion of de-recognition, as might be desirable when a more
> representative entity might arise that would make a preferable SO to the
> existing one.
De-recognition is the one area where I see a clear advantage to
separate incorporation -- it is much easier to simply not renew a
contract with another corporation than it is to root out part of
your membership and restructure things...
BTW -- I cc'd this to the discuss@dnso.org list, as this debate is
focussed on an important detail of SO formation.
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain