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

[Erick Iriarte]

Hi..

I use this mail to remember something that i said in Accra.

Is important participate in the discuss, but is more important make a 
propose, a real, in consensus, we need more propose of Reform or not 
reform, is not possible only say: "i support or i don't support" this 
document, is necessary a real process of discuss and colective creation.

Erick


At 04:18 p.m. 4/1/2002, James Love wrote:
>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
> >