[ncdnhc-discuss] A statement on the ICANN "reform" proposal

[Dave Crocker]

At 12:39 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>         I'm aware of no evidence that Stuart Lynn put forward the proposal
>to put government-selected directors on the ICANN Board because
>governments indicated that they would "accept" nothing less.

1.  I'm sure that you and I lack a great deal of relevant "evidence".  That 
hardly means it does not exist.

2.  The concerns, frustrations and pressures from various governments have 
been frequently and publicly documented for some years.

3.  No one said the government folk said anything like "nothing less", so 
your choice of that particular perspective biases further analysis.  Lynn 
put forward a proposal that he views as synthesizing some issues.  He 
states his reasons in a pretty straightforward manner.

If you think you can formulate a superior balancing of the issues -- and 
please remember that one of the requirements is to finally put to bed the 
constant threat of government intervention -- then please do put it forward.


>   Rather, the
>moving force behind this proposal seems to be ICANN staff, motivated by
>their perception of the greater legitimacy and stable funding base that a
>more extensive govermnment role would bring.

It is impressive to see how comfortable you are making such a simplistic 
assessment of their motives.



At 12:56 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, Rob Courtney wrote:
>At 9:27 AM -0800 2/26/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>>However ICANN must worry about ensuring that the name and number 
>>administration service actually works in this real world we all 
>>inhabit.  A working system must deal with more than a small set of 
>>protocol standards.  It must deal with its operation in a larger context.
>>
>>Absence of a UDRP, for example, was in fact proving crippling. Hence the 
>>need for a mechanism that dealt with a core set of registration disputes.
>
>I'm flexible. Dispute resolution could be built into the mission (assuming 
>that we define ICANN's role in creating a dispute resolution structure 
>quite narrowly). The key is not that the list has to be short -- although 
>I think the list could be quite short, since the shorter the list, the 
>narrower the mission -- but that the list has to be well-defined.

The list is already short and narrow.  Always has been.

All of the fears some folk espouse are about things that ICANN has never 
sought.



At 09:42 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
>Dave, just out of curiosity.  Have you ever found even *one* thing
>recommended to or done by  the ICANN staff that you did not like?

James, just out of curiosity, have you ever found it possible to focus on 
the serious issues, rather than automatically seeking to make things personal?

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  (new)fax +1.408.850.1850