[ncdnhc-discuss] Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform SeeksPublicSubmissions

[James Love]

Alejandro,

Has or would the ICANN board seriously considered any "reform" that would
move toward a more decentralized approach to "policy making"?   For example,
allowing the five regions (or some other formulation) to have their own
systems to addressing issues of approvals of new TLDs, subject to
coordination on uniqueness, or on the protection of trademarks, or other
issues?     This would allow more diversity in terms of regional governance
models.   Is the centralized approach really necessary for solving the issue
of obtaining consensus on a unique name space, or could this be solved with
mechanisms that focus on coordination between equals?

  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
Cc: "Barbara Simons" <simons at acm.org>; "Erick Iriarte"
<faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe>; "NCDNHC list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform
SeeksPublicSubmissions


> Hi Milton, and all,
>
> 1. the committee on evolution and reform is a committee formed by the
> Board to prepare input for the reform process, with as much and as good
> input as possible from the community. It is no more "Alejandro's
> committee" than the NCDNHC is "Milton's constituency".
>
> 2. the ways to put "political pressure from the outside" on ICANN all seem
> to involve the executive or the legislative (now also the judiciary)
> powers of the government of a single country. I detect a contradiction
> with the principle of internationalization, and with the supposed aversion
> to the intervention of governments, to which many have reacted after
> reading Prof. Lynn's proposal.
>
> 3. so I would repeat a call to work for a reform that shapes ICANN in such
> a way that it can really aspire to obtain control of the root, before the
> governments really take the matter in their hands, and before the reform
> becomes an all-business proposition (many of you have already seen the
> proposal for a trade-association-only).
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
.
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
> UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
> http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
> =====>>> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> > Barbara:
> > I agree that we should publicly "express dismay" at
> > the Lynn proposal, and also develop and elaborate
> > constructive alternatives. The question is how we
> > express it and to whom we express it!
> >
> > Perhaps my message was misinterpreted. I am not asking us
> > to remain silent. I am simply warning us not to view the Board's
> > committee as the primary vehicle for discussing this issue
> > and for forging a consensus position.
> >
> > The ICANN process has broken. ICANN's management and
> > Board have created so much uncertainty and arbitrariness
> > about how things will be done, what methods will be used,
> > whose support counts and whose doesn't that one would
> > have to be quite foolish to treat Alejandro's committee
> > as if it were an arena in which we could forge a consensus.
> >
> > Of course, our NC representatives should maintain active
> > dialogue with other constituencies through the DNSO
> > committee. They should also liaise with GA members.
> > The DNSO still has some value as a place for the exchange
> > of views.
> >
> > But the arena for forging a consensus position has moved
> > outside of ICANN. And that is only fitting and just, because
> > ICANN's mgmt and Board have repeatedly shown that they
> > would rather make up processes as they go along rather
> > than rely upon the policy making structures emodied in its
> > own bylaws. And since forging a consensus is hard
> > work (something Alejandro may not appreciate because
> > he has never really had to do it), we should not waste
> > effort petitioning a top-down Board committee, but rather
> > create political pressure from outside ICANN.
> >
> > >>> Barbara Simons <simons at acm.org> 03/28/02 02:09PM >>>
> > Milton,
> > I'm not sure I agree with you.  While it's obvious that
> > ICANN couldn't care less about what the user community
> > thinks, it might be useful to have many folks expressing
> > dismay at the blatant power grab that we have just witnessed.
> > The wider political forces to which you refer are more likely
> > to pay attention if many voices are heard in opposition.
> > Barbara
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>