<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] A statement on the ICANN
"reform"</title></head><body>
<div>At 8:17 AM -0800 2/26/02, Dave Crocker wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>At 10:15 AM 2/26/2002 -0500, Rob Courtney
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Yes, but by bringing governments into the
policy structure</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Governments have always been in the
structure. The real problem has been trying to maintain a
fantasy that they weren't. Governments have real and basic
power. No matter how much the US Whitehouse, The NCDNHC, the
CDT, or anyone else might honestly want governments to stay our of
ICANN activity -- and no matter how much they actually SHOULD stay out
-- there is a bottom-line reality that they stay out only if they want
to. In this case, they do not want to.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Having governments "in the structure" through the GAC
and having them in it by having them select a third of the Board are
quite different things, of course. I don't suggest ICANN's decisions
should or even could be completely insulated from influence by
national officials, but the degree and type of that influence is
something that those who design ICANN have control over.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>there's a risk of ICANN over time being
pressured beyond its technical mission into "real" Internet
Governance.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>So far mission creep is primarily a
problem being caused by the people who claim to be afraid of it,
rather than something ICANN has actually demonstrated.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>While the Lynn proposal several times
mentions that ICANN's mission is narrow and technical, I don't think
it establishes enough actual meaningful safeguards against this kind
of mission expansion.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>There is the minor problem that if you
try to worry about everything that can possibly go wrong, you will
never make any progress. AND you will not succeed at protecting
against all abuses. Humans are much too clever for
that.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>The solution to this problem would be to describe the things that
ICANN SHOULD be doing, and then limit it to those activities. By
definition everything you have not described would be outside ICANN's
narrow technical mission.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I think it is possible to describe, with clarity, every single
one of the things ICANN should be doing. As a strawman: ONLY those
items for which centralized control is NECESSARY to assure
interoperability, data integrity, the availability of the Whois,
etc.<font face="Times New Roman" size="+2" color="#000000">
(</font>There are critical mission elements missing here, but they
could be added as long as they were added in a clear way that brooks
very little disagreement about what they mean.)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>r</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>As an exercise, please list all of the
things that a parent needs to watch out for a child doing that is bad
or dangerous. Remember that the stakes are that the child can
hurt themselves, or others, or damage property. So be very
diligent at making this list.<br>
<br>
Did you make sure to
protect against their taking a rock an running it down the side of
your car?<br>
<br>
Worry about what is. Not the infinite range of what might
be.<br>
<br>
Or, at least, rather than just criticize the proposal, try to offer
specific modifications. (Unless, of course, you think that ICANN
is functioning just fine.)<br>
<br>
d/<br>
<br>
<br>
----------<br>
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com><br>
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://www.brandenburg.com><br>
tel +1.408.246.8253; (new)fax +1.408.850.1850<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
Discuss@icann-ncc.org<br>
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>