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

[Hans Klein]

Dave,

The representative of the European Commission has been consistent in his 
support for the At Large Membership as the effective counterbalance to the 
Internet supply industry, which currently accounts for most board members.

The most frequently heard concern, frustration, and pressure from 
government officials has been with the "cavalier" way in which the bylaws 
have been re-written and the unwillingness of today's ICANN to implement 
the 1998 agreements.

Hans




At 09:11 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss