[IANAtransition] Separation of Responsibilities from current SoW

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Apr 12 19:47:20 UTC 2014


IANAL, but I suspect that it's very hard to have truly immutable
text in the bylaws. It might be possible in the Articles of
Incorporation. But as I tried to say yesterday, the conflict of
interest isn't there. It's in the ability to make money out of
*authorizing* a new TLD, not in the clerical trivia of registering it.

   Brian

On 12/04/2014 19:08, Richard Hill wrote:
> I thank Chip for bringing a relevant fact to our attention.  Facts are considered the basis from which to conduct logical reasoning in many fields, including engineering, law, and science.
> 
> In turn I offer another fact which appears to me to be relevant.  Article XIX of the ICANN Bylaws states:
> 
> "Except as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of ICANN may be altered, amended, or repealed and new Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws adopted only upon action by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Board." 
> 
> That is, the ICANN Board can change its bylaws.  
> 
> Brian suggests that functional separation would be ensured if the current functional separation provision of the IANA contract is added to the ICANN Bylaws.
> 
> I disagree, because the ICANN Board could at any time repeal or change such a provision in the ICANN Bylaws.
> 
> That's why I keep saying that either the ICANN Bylaws have to be drastically revised (including so that they cannot be changed by the Board) or we should envisage structural separation.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ianatransition-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:ianatransition-bounces at icann.org]On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>> Sent: samedi, 12. avril 2014 07:17
>> To: Chip Sharp (chsharp)
>> Cc: ianatransition at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Separation of Responsibilities from
>> current SoW
>>
>>
>> On 12/04/2014 15:39, Chip Sharp (chsharp) wrote:
>>> Since there seems to be a lot of discussion on the list about 
>> what is or is not in the current contract about separation of 
>> policy development and operational roles of the IANA function, I 
>> thought it might be useful to pull the text from the Statement of Work.
>>> >From SA1301-12-CN-0035 and SA1301-12-RP-0043:
>>>
>>> "C.2.5 Separation of Policy Development and Operational Roles 
>> -- The Contractor shall ensure that designated IANA functions 
>> staff members will not initiate, advance, or advocate any policy 
>> development related to the IANA functions. The Contractor’s staff 
>> may respond to requests for information requested by interested 
>> and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3 to inform 
>> ongoing policy discussions and may request guidance or 
>> clarification as necessary for the performance of the IANA functions.”
>>
>> And those requirements should be added to ICANN's By Laws. I 
>> can't disagree.
>> If that's all we're arguing about, the argument's over.
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ianatransition mailing list
>> ianatransition at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
>>
>>
> 
> .
> 




More information about the ianatransition mailing list