[ncdnhc-discuss] Some Comments on Lynn's Proposal in Accra NCDNHC meeting!

[Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM]

Dear Adam,

quick summary. Starts around the end of Andy Mueller Maguhn's
presentation, ie about 1 hr into the meeting or so.

Andy described the Board process so far as driven by staff, and stated
that the Directors are either shy or just approve what is given to them. I
took exception to this and other statements fo his.

AP (I) made a statement describing Lynn's proposal and asking for input on
specific aspects of it, trying to go beyond primary reactions. For
example, assume the report's proposals are carried through. What would be
the best implementations, what would be the safeguards for non-commercial
principles, etc.?

Norbert Klein. Appreciate talking of principles. need to see framework of
principles behind Lynn's proposal. Use White Paper as basis. Question of
govtl participation.

Echeberria. Views Lynn proposal as complete failure. Accepts consensus on
identification of important problems. Makes three points:

1. Governments may not provide solution for funding. Funding should come
from gTLDs, RIRs, and ccTLDs.

2. Loops for governance in proposal (AP objecction/clarification: loops
are not closed)

3. Disagrees on where in the structure problems reside.

Courtney. Echo that Lynn dentifies right problems. Asks for narrow mission
definition. Acknowledges that govts worldwide are becoming activist re
Internet. Flags opportunity for NCDNHC contribution to participatory
structure. Need to find out how to have acctive participation, role,
voice.

Jonathan Cohen. Principles are important. White Paper is a blueprint and
may need adjustment. About governemnts: they are there, and active. Naive
to think ICANN can just proceed w/o them. Govts may provide checks and
balances for each other, , watchdog effect. Directors want to asssess
inputs themselves.



Mueller Maguhn, to Cohen. Need blance between users and infrastructure
providers.

Kleinwaechter. ICANN expoeriment in course, present debate needed. Give
stakeholders a say; question is how to balance interest. Naive to think
you can avoid intergovtl horse-trading. Was involved in UNESCO;
intellectuals were displaced by diplomats. Difficult to get money from
govts, which may rather go to ITU/UN. If you eclude people they will
self-organize.. Better be inclusive.

I omit some AP comments made during the meeting excpet breifly: structure
proposed by Lynn similar to that of universities in many countries.
Contains checks and balances, is open to refreshing and renewal, can
include all productive inputs and people in governance positions. Klein
objects that it alsoreminds him of Eastern European govts of some time
ago. AP reply is that openness of system is key remedy.

Unfortunately I did not record some comments by Hans Klein in my notebook.
Wld be glad to read his summary too.


I should add that there were a couple of procedural buneles, like
discussing a motion which had been discarded, and not checking for right
to vote. Motions that did not carry were those on .org consumer
porotection.

YJ made a motion for the prompt divestiture of .org. Since she herself
expressed she is in a position of conflict of interest on this matter
(even while she was on the Names Council this position had already
appeared) the constituency only took note.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
=====>>> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .