[ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG

Fri Apr 5 07:41:29 CEST 2002

Let me seek some clarification. 

Here's my understanding.

The board resolution allows for profit entities to bid, as well as not for profit, as recommended by the TF/NC supported policy recommendation.  So that is a change from the TF/NC recommendation. It doesn't deny the recommendation; it expands it.

The for profit bids don't quality for the $5m established by Verisign as a "transitional support" [my words, not theirs].  Not for profit bids do qualify. The Board resolution doesn't address that, and indeed has no power to change that reality.

Criteria about reliability, performance, etc. would apply across any bid.  Nothing changed.

The board seems to be free to consider both kinds of bids, but not bound to chose one over the other, other things being equal. A change from the TF resolution/NC recommendation, but one which provides an extended option;  not one which eliminates the TF/NC recommendation.

The board is probably thus assured of getting both kinds of bids, other things being equal.

The NC's policy recommendation included a review of the RFP with the NC/one round only. 

I have seen no indication that the staff wouldn't do that review. Like others, I would like for that review to take place. For my part, I promise to be civil, organized, courteous, and helpful in my comments. I am sure others on the NC will do the same. Oh, yeah. I promise to be timely. That's actually harder for me, but I consider it an essential pledge.

So, here's my view:  Credible, sustainable, workable 'competitive' bids are needed. Assurance of stability for existing registrants; while development of policy for future registrants is also needed.  

If we start with an agreement that successful outcomes are needed which deliver 'competitive' sustainable bids from a range of players, but that 'competitive' includes ensuring stability for existing registrants, we may get to common ground more quickly.  

In my mind, the staff needs to move ahead with RFP development. They, and then the respondents, have a ticking clock. 

Let's not let the art of the perfect outcome be the enemy of the good and productive and timely outcome...... now, I know that isn't QUITE right, so don't bother flame me JUST on that difference in wording. 

I expect a review with the NC-- I expect to have it happen. 

Was I disappointed that there was no discussion between ICANN staff and the NC about the lack of understanding in certain areas. You bet.  Was I a little unhappy to hear that they needed clarification first at the Accra meeting. Of course. BUT, responsibilty for communication is two sided.  We didn't schedule a review discussion with the staff.  I assume my share of responsibilty for this failure to suggest that there needed to a staff/NC discussion.  We, the NC, should have scheduled a dialogue. They, the Staff, should also have thought to ask us for clarification. Let's give each other a "break". 

Look, we are all new at this; the constituency reps are turning over with elections when they occur; new folks are coming into the policy making arena ... and everybody does the best they can.  An old adage.. of successful managers: assume that the employee is doing the best they can, and then, you can help them do better.... Lots of people need help to do better. WE, the NC, needed help to do better. We are volunteers. We overlooked the need to ask for and schedule a discussion with the staff. Ditto for the staff.  oops, on both parts. Now, some will spend their time flaming me about the practicality of this approach. Being more blame and flame... :-)

For me, I'd like to suggest:  let's move on; learn from this, and ask for an assurance that the RFC will be presented to the NC for comment and commit that we have a very short turn around.

..... That shouldn't be hard to commit to...and moves all balls forward.

Marilyn Cade

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:16 AM
To: James Love
Cc: apisan at servidor.unam.mx; KathrynKL at aol.com; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA;
discuss at icann-ncc.org; Amadeu at nominalia.com; jcohen at shapirocohen.com;
vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com; General Assembly of the DNSO; Don Evans; Karen
Rose; kathy smith; Nancy J. Victory; Conrad Burns; Kay Bailey Hutchison;
Phil Gramm
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG

Jamie and all,

James Love wrote:

> Milton, In fairness to the board and the ICANN staff, "the community" isn't
> a very precise concept, and there has been a lot of evidence that for profit
> groups have offered to finance front groups to bid for .org.

  Good point.  But I think Milton's reference was understood regardless.

>  I also don't
> think the board or the ICANN staff is acting out of bad motivation, even if
> I disagree with some things they have done.

  With all due respect Jamie, I am not sure this is true.  In some recent
instances, I along with many others are quite sure from certain
BOD and staff members statements and actions closely following
those statements, they have indeed acted in purposeful bad faith or
are prone to doing so.  Some of Alejandro's comments just yesterday
are examples, for instance.  I also cannot reasonably except that with
all the input that they receive and have received before every single
ICANN meeting, that they are acting out of ignorance either.
Recent events with the .ORG and now again with .BIZ and .INFO
come to mind as presented by Richard Hinderson and others.

>  If we are focusing on the .org
> issue, and also on the relationship between the DNSO and the board, would it
> be useful to respond to the board's legitimate concerns, no matter how
> awkwardly they were presented, and move this forward in a way that allows
> the DNSO process to be respected, while allowing the board to ensure that
> the bid is handled in a way that is creditable and fair?

  I would say both yes and no here.  Yes if and only if the BoD is going to
in advance respect any TF's recommendations as required in part by the
Bylaws as Karl earlier pointed out on three separate occasions.  No,
if they are not.  And if they are not, than as our members have indicated
it is time for the DOC/NTIA to take drastic steps or for congress to
act (Hearing as you know are being arranged).

>   I think this is
> something that can be done, if both sides are willing.   Jamie

  The key is "If both sides are willing".  I believe that the stakeholders
have demonstrably shown from the beginning of the ICANN formation
that they are more than willing.  I cannot say the same for the Boardsquaters,
and many of the ICANN Staff...

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
> To: <karl at cavebear.com>; <james.love at cptech.org>; <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Cc: <KathrynKL at aol.com>; <mcade at att.com>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>;
> <froomkin at law.miami.edu>; <Amadeu at nominalia.com>; <jcohen at shapirocohen.com>;
> <vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG
>
> >
> > Let me see if I have interpreted the Board's position correctly.
> >
> > The Board does not believe that either itself or the community
> > could tell the difference between a "sham" non-profit governance
> > entity and a real one.
> >
> > And so, in order to eliminate the risk of for-profits gaining
> > control of .org under a "sham," it decided to invite for-profits
> > to apply for it openly.
> >
> > Is that about right?
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208