[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN articles of incorporation

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
> Encumbering ICANN with a formal, governmental relationship -- no
matter
> whether ITU or US DOC -- is the same step as Lynn is proposing.

Lynn's proposal involves governments, but it is a particular approach,
and not the one I would recommend.    But before getting to that, I
would not reject everything Lynn said just because Lynn said it, anymore
than I would reject everthing Dave Crocker said just because Dave
Crocker said it.  One fundemental thing Lynn is saying is that ICANN
needs to have a different relationships with governments, and he might
be right about that.  Maybe the older vision of persuading DOC to simply
turn the root over to ICANN with no strings attached is not the best
model, particularly given the inability of ICANN to explain how it
elects its own board members.

If Lynn seeks a greater role for governments, for more legitimacy, he
might be at least right about that, even if one disagrees about  how he
would implement it.  And even there, Lynn has asked for comments, and
that's good too.

Lynn seems wrapped up in the Public Private Partnership  (PPP) rhetoric,
which has been fashionable in recent years in the public health area,
but is probably somewhat naive about PPP issues.    Lots of basic stuff
regarding transparency, accountability and fairness can still get
screwed up in a PPP model.  You still have to question who picks the
board members who elect the board members the governments nominate, or
the board members the government doesn't nominate.  And you still should
address the boundary issue, if for no other reason to provide some basis
for accepting this elitist and business dominated structure.  Why should
anyone be happy with Lynn's proposal unless they have some assurance
that is isn't going to get into areas where it has no basis to exercise
authority?

It isn't enough to say things aren't broken.  The ICANN CEO says they
are broken, and something probably needs to be fixed.  It is my opinion
that Lynn should run a bit with the ITU proposal to formalize the
boundary issue for ICANN.  Maybe ITU does not want ICANN to have a huge
policy making mandate..... and if so, that could be a good thing.
Maybe ITU isn't the right  body to negotiate this boundary issue.   But
if not ITU, then who?   I have an open mind on this.

  Jamie