ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    ICANN Staff and Structure Touton on whether charters matter
    posted by jon on Monday November 12 2001, @04:55PM

    Way back when, ICANN recognized a bunch of "constituencies" to populate the Names Council. Each had to have a charter, and ICANN took the charters seriously; it held up recognition of most of the constituencies until they amended their charters to include the provisions the ICANN staff and Board found appropriate. Adherence to the charter provisions was supposed to ensure that the "Widget Constituency" really did fully, fairly and transparently serve the international widget community, and wasn't just an unrepresentative set of companies illegitimately purporting to speak for widget folks worldwide.



    Bruce James recently filed a protest urging that the BC's election to the Names Council both of Marilyn Cade (of AT&T) and Grant Forsyth (of CLEAR) violated the BC's charter, which forbids Names Council membership by more than one person "working for or representing" any "identifiable business sector." Both AT&T and CLEAR are telecom companies that offer web hosting, Internet-based and e-business services to complement their telecom services. Ms. Cade and Mr. Forsyth answered that they did not work for the same business sector because, they said, their job responsibilities are different: although both of them are responsible for articulating their company's public-policy positions (that is, they're lobbyists), Ms. Cade is primarily concerned with the Internet and e-commerce, while Mr. Forsyth is CLEAR's Manager for Industry and Regulatory Affairs, responsible for all of its public policy positions. The constituency voted to accept that. Mr. James appealed to ICANN authority.

    Louis Touton has now denied the appeal. Did he decide that the BC was correct in its interpretation of the charter? Well, not exactly. Actually, he didn't say anything about what the charter means. Rather, he said, ICANN won't be enforcing charters. A claim that a constituency violated its own bylaws is, simply, irrelevant.

    Touton's decision resonates nicely with the notion that a "self-organizing" constituency should manage its own affairs -- and there is something unattractively top-down about ICANN staff telling constituencies who they can and can't choose for the NC. Yet the DNSO model, divvying up NC power among seven constituency groups, makes sense only if we can ensure that each constituency is in fact open and representative. The original understanding was that the charters were supposed to do that. If constituency charters are merely precatory, so that a constituency need not follow its own rules, that knocks out yet another prop supporting the notion that it made sense to distribute NC power among a grab-bag of arbitrarily selected "constituencies" in the first place.

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Touton on whether charters matter | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 3 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Touton on whether charters matter
    by dpf (dpf@ihug.co.nz) on Tuesday November 13 2001, @10:35PM (#3688)
    User #2770 Info | http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/
    It is good to have had clarification from ICANN as to what their stance is but disappointing that they refuse to take any responsibility at all for constituencies thay they personally approved.

    Jon has articulated well the lack of logic behind this decision. Now that it is official that ICANN will not interfere no matter how flagrantly constituencies break their own charters it will be interesting to observe how this may affect constituency behaviour.

    If one day we do get get an individual's constituency it will be great to be on the interim Executive because according to ICANN one could expel all other members of the constituency and appoint yourselves as Names Council members for life.

    DPF
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com