[ncdnhc-discuss] ITU on ICANN

[Dave Crocker]

At 02:54 PM 4/15/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
>If a body has no interest in straying from a narrow mandate, surely it
>would be useful to have a more enforceable limit to the mandate, in
>order to reduce public concerns that this or a future board may get into
>areas where they should not.

1.  One can always spend time worrying about problems that do not 
exist.  However the argument that such wasted effort does not harm ignores 
the distraction of resources -- nevermind the inappropriately negative 
publicity -- that is spent on the exercise.

2.  There is already plenty of documentation constraining ICANN 
scope.  Hence the proposal causes not only the question "what problem is 
being solved" but what "enforcement" is being proposed that is superior to 
what already exists.


>Perhaps some on this is due to the various
>bottom up consensus type rules that ICANN is supposed to follow.

Given that those bottom up activities have mostly focused on issues not 
directly relevant to ICANN doing its job, perhaps the real cause is that 
the board and the staff have managed to stay focused in spite of the 
considerable efforts by others to distract things.


>    Lynn
>wants to change things,

Lynn has not proposed changing scope.  Lynn has not cited changing scope as 
a problem.  Hence the fact that Lynn wants to change things has nothing at 
all to do with efforts to "restrict" ICANN scope.


>   If so, it seems to
>me that it would be good to formalize the boundary issue, as ITU has
>suggested.


The "boundary issue" is already formalized.  Again:  What real and present 
problem are you trying to fix that actually exists?

d/


----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850