[ncdnhc-discuss] Latest draft NC doc on reform

[James Love]

Harold, regarding the difficulty in getting NCC consensus on reforms on
short notice without f2f:

1.  Probably more realistic to have members submit comments under their own
names......
2.  I would not expect to see the ICANN board embrace any of the proposals
that radically reduce ICANN's power.   The board trend seems to be in the
opposite direction, despite the widespread public support for a leaner and
weaker ICANN.
3.  The purpose of submitting comments to the offical ICANN process is
partly to influence ICANN, and partly to provide something for DOC or the
GAC to review, in determing whether or not to extend ICANN's power over the
root.

It is ironic.  ICANN was created to protect the Internet from governments.
Then ICANN's CEO said they had to turn to governments to protect ICANN from
the Internet community (the elections).   Now activist are turning to
governments to protect the Internet from ICANN.

   Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold J. Feld" <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
To: <KathrynKL at aol.com>; "NCDNHC List" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Latest draft NC doc on reform


> As you can see none of the suggested wording I posted was adopted,
> although the independent review idea seems to have been included as a
> suggestion.
>
> Part of the problem is that we do not have a consensus out of the NCC,
> whereas other constituencies do.  Of course, we also do not have the
> capability to generate consensus quickly via face2face meetings and
> conference calls, as other constituencies have.  Arguably, adcomcould
> take a greater role, but there has been resistance in the consticuency
> from Adcom acting unilaterally on a mere sense from the discussion
> group.  While more democratic, it does prove less efficient where
> consultation and reolution are necessary on a weekly basis.
>
> again, I would urge the constituency to create a process NOW so that we
> can reach official consensus on a few points to submit.  I would argue
> critical points on which we might consider a constituency position are:
>
> 1) Role of governments and or the ITU.
>
> 2) Representation
>
> 3) Transparency
>
> 4) Accountability (the one aspect entirely lacking in any governing
> document I have seen.  Much talk of transparency, but nothing about
> accountability mechanisms).
>
> As for changes proposed by other constituencies: the big push from the
> registry & registrar consticuencies is to include language that policy
> should be formulated by those "primarily affected."  Both constituencies
> have expressed concern that other constituencies (notably the ccTLD
> consticuency) have refused to adopt policies while insisting on playing
> a role (often a delaying role) in development.  BC and NCC have resisted
> this, since at least I see this as an exclusionary mechanism in which we
> could be excluded, or forced into a non-leadership role, in any
> significant policy dispute.
>
> Harold Feld
>
> KathrynKL at aol.com wrote:
>
> > Harold:
> > Wording is very important, particularly if the NCC's Names Council
> > members are going to be voting in favor of the document.   Could you
> > please share what changes from our NCC suggestions you were able to
> > get into the current NC document?  Could you share the major changes
> > that the other constituencies entered?
> >
> > thanks,
> > kathy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>