I disagree. The ICANN General Counsel represents ICANN, not us. We are independently charged with interpreting and acting upon the bylaws, and may or may not reach the same conclusion as the GC. --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses.
On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
The other thing is that the no orgs-of-orgs language is in the ICANN bylaws. I entirely agree that it is arbitrary, and there are good reasons that they might want to change it. The bylaws are not written in stone, and we (the ALAC) have gotten the board to change language that didn't work in the past. But rather than doing that, does anyone really think that it is a good idea simply to ignore bylaws that we don't like?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/