[ncdnhc-discuss] U.S. gov't asks ICANN for restructuring info

[James Love]

Chris,

Let me present a few problems we have from Bucharest.

1.   Zero of the elected ICANN at-large board members voted against the
blueprint.   Indeed, the blue print was approved unanimously by the BOD,
including all of the board squatters but also all of the elected SO members.
2.   Neither the GA Chair nor Vice Chair bothered to report the
re-bid/no-confidence resolutions that were passed, and neither objected to
the Blueprint plan to eliminate the elected GA Chair or strip its ability to
take votes.  The Chair of the GAC apparently refused to allow the GAC to
discuss the GA motions.
3.   The elected Chair and VP of icannatlarge.com associated themselves with
Esther's new "focus group" substitute for democracy.
4.   I could not get a single board member to offer any support for making
disclosures of ICANN's costs of litigation.
5.   The NCC has yet to take a position on the Blueprint.
6.   There is no consensus among ICANN critics regarding the alternatives.
7.   The USG did not register any apparent objection to the elimination of
the independent review process, nor did any other GAC member.
8.   ICANN held a secret meeting early in the week, which everyone knew
about, and no one registered any complaints.
9.   The GAC, which meets in secret, was not in a good position to complain
much about the lack of transparency at ICANN.
10.  One elected at-large member said he could accept an undemocratic or
even autocratic/business controlled structure as long the US government lost
control over the root.

      And this is just for starters.   What will Nancy Victory use to justify
doing anything but rubber stamping the ICANN proposals, if she uses these
ICANN proceedings as a record for the public's input into the reform
process?  There is no transparency (secret meetings, unrecorded meetings,
private listserves for the board, not disclosure of finances), no
accountability, no democracy process, no independent review and so little
trust few not-in-the-domain-names-trade even bother to participate.  Is this
a problem for Victory?   Who knows?

Jamie


Chris Chiu wrote:
 > Nancy Victory, the United States Assistant Secretary for Communications and
 > Information, has sent 2 letters to ICANN regarding its ongoing restructuring
 > efforts. The first letter requests a report from ICANN, due August 15, 2002,
 > regarding "whether ICANN has clarified its mission and responsibilities, ...
 > reformed its decision-making processes to provide for transparency and
 > accountability, the views of all Internet stakeholders to be heard,"
 > provided "an effective advisory role for governments," and "has a mechanism
 > to ensure adequate financial and personnel resources to carry out its
 > mission." The second letter asks ICANN to clarify (by July 26, 2002) "how
 > the comments of the various supporting organizations and advisory
 > committees" during its recent meetings in Bucharest, Romania "will be taken
 > into account and ... what process will be instituted to further your reform
 > efforts between now and the Board meeting in Shanghai scheduled for October
 > 2002."
 >
 > See
 > http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights
 >
 > Sincerely,
 > Christopher Chiu
 > Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer
 > American Civil Liberties Union
 > _______________________________________________
 > Discuss mailing list
 > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
 > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 >
 >



-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love at cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040