<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1543" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>Is anyone in the Constituency interested in organizing a meeting --
online or by telephone -- with the candidates for the Board? Other
Constituencies are doing this, and it might be quite interesting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>Kathy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>Milton posted:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><<Discussion with Philip Sheppard about his positions on ICANN
issues.<BR><BR>Return-path: <philip.sheppard@aim.be><BR>Received: from
mx2.syr.edu [128.230.20.21]<BR> by gwia201.syr.edu; Fri, 26 May
2006 05:19:46 -0400<BR>Received: from turbo.aim.be
(118.216-78-194.adsl-fix.skynet.be [194.78.216.118])<BR> by
mx2.syr.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4Q9JhpI017337<BR>
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)<BR>
for <Mueller@syr.edu>; Fri, 26 May 2006 05:19:45 -0400<BR>Received:
from turbo.aim.be (localhost [127.0.0.1])<BR> by turbo.aim.be
(8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id k4Q9JftY017109<BR> for
<Mueller@syr.edu>; Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:41 +0200<BR>Received: from
87.65.163.36<BR> (SquirrelMail authenticated user
philip)<BR> by mailbox.aim.be with HTTP;<BR>
Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:41 +0200 (CEST)<BR>Message-ID:
<47814.87.65.163.36.1148635181.squirrel@mailbox.aim.be><BR>In-Reply-To:
<s475d09d.099@gwia202.syr.edu><BR>References:
<s475d09d.099@gwia202.syr.edu><BR>Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:41 +0200
(CEST)<BR>Subject: Re: questions about your positions<BR>From:
philip.sheppard@aim.be<BR>To: "Milton Mueller"
<Mueller@syr.edu><BR>User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2<BR>MIME-Version:
1.0<BR>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1<BR>Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit<BR>X-Priority: 3<BR>Importance: Normal<BR>X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus
for Sendmail<BR>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new<BR><BR><BR><BR>Milton, thanks
for this. Happy for you to share the answers.<BR>Philip<BR><BR>> 1.
competition.<BR>> by "competition at the registry level" do you mean
inter-TLD<BR>> competition (more new registries) or competition for an
exclusive<BR>> assignment of existing TLDs (e.g., bidding for .org or .net or
.info) or<BR>> both?<BR>Both. There have to be new gTLDs and a certain
process for them. We are<BR>already discussing the idea of a form contract for a
new registry - so<BR>that an applicant registry knows up front what it is in
for. This would<BR>end the odd discrepancies in registry contracts we see today.
Further,<BR>there must be an end to the piecemeal batch process of the past. And
until<BR>the subsequent competition makes significant inroads to the
existing<BR>dominance I support competitive re-bidding as well.<BR><BR>> 2.
governments and GAC<BR>> do you see icann's private sector governance model
as threatened by<BR>> recent developments strengthening the (sometimes
arbitrary) role of<BR>> national governments and GAC, or not? do you see any
need for reforms in<BR>> how GAC operates or how it relates to GNSO policy
process? do you<BR>> believe that the Board should be able to say "no" to
GAC?<BR>><BR>ICANN treads a fine line and in the real world must be seen to
be<BR>responsive to reasonable goverment pressure. However, ICANN also
has<BR>founding principles. If the Board always acts in accord with
those<BR>principles, it establishes the ground upon which it can indeed say no
to<BR>government pressure.<BR><BR>As to GAC operation, the informalilty of the
GAC today is actually an<BR>advantage. It is quite different to other
inter-governmental bodies even<BR>those with more business senses like the OECD.
An intelligent way forward<BR>is for better GAC involvement at the early stages
of policy development,<BR>so that it buys into the results. Giving it the
ability to comment from on<BR>high will be a cause of conflict.<BR><BR>I'd be
interested in your own thoughts on this
too.<BR><BR>Philip<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>