Fwd: Re: questions about your positions

[KathrynKL at AOL.COM]

Is anyone in the Constituency interested in organizing a meeting --  online
or by telephone -- with the candidates for the Board?  Other  Constituencies
are doing this, and it might be quite interesting.

Regards,
Kathy

Milton posted:

<<Discussion with Philip Sheppard about his positions on ICANN  issues.

Return-path: <philip.sheppard at aim.be>
Received: from  mx2.syr.edu [128.230.20.21]
by gwia201.syr.edu; Fri, 26 May  2006 05:19:46 -0400
Received: from turbo.aim.be  (118.216-78-194.adsl-fix.skynet.be
[194.78.216.118])
by  mx2.syr.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4Q9JhpI017337
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for <Mueller at syr.edu>; Fri, 26 May 2006 05:19:45 -0400
Received:  from turbo.aim.be (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turbo.aim.be  (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id k4Q9JftY017109
for  <Mueller at syr.edu>; Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:41 +0200
Received: from  87.65.163.36
(SquirrelMail authenticated user  philip)
by mailbox.aim.be with HTTP;
Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID:  <47814.87.65.163.36.1148635181.squirrel at mailbox.aim.be>
In-Reply-To:  <s475d09d.099 at gwia202.syr.edu>
References:  <s475d09d.099 at gwia202.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:41 +0200  (CEST)
Subject: Re: questions about your positions
From:  philip.sheppard at aim.be
To: "Milton Mueller"  <Mueller at syr.edu>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2
MIME-Version:  1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  8bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus  for Sendmail
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new



Milton, thanks  for this. Happy for you to share the answers.
Philip

> 1.  competition.
> by "competition at the registry level" do you mean  inter-TLD
> competition (more new registries) or competition for an  exclusive
> assignment of existing TLDs (e.g., bidding for .org or .net or  .info) or
> both?
Both. There have to be new gTLDs and a certain  process for them. We are
already discussing the idea of a form contract for a  new registry - so
that an applicant registry knows up front what it is in  for. This would
end the odd discrepancies in registry contracts we see today.  Further,
there must be an end to the piecemeal batch process of the past. And  until
the subsequent competition makes significant inroads to the  existing
dominance I support competitive re-bidding as well.

> 2.  governments and GAC
> do you see icann's private sector governance model  as threatened by
> recent developments strengthening the (sometimes  arbitrary) role of
> national governments and GAC, or not? do you see any  need for reforms in
> how GAC operates or how it relates to GNSO policy  process? do you
> believe that the Board should be able to say "no" to  GAC?
>
ICANN treads a fine line and in the real world must be seen to  be
responsive to reasonable goverment pressure. However, ICANN also  has
founding principles. If the Board always acts in accord with  those
principles, it establishes the ground upon which it can indeed say no  to
government pressure.

As to GAC operation, the informalilty of the  GAC today is actually an
advantage. It is quite different to other  inter-governmental bodies even
those with more business senses like the OECD.  An intelligent way forward
is for better GAC involvement at the early stages  of policy development,
so that it buys into the results. Giving it the  ability to comment from on
high will be a cause of conflict.

I'd be  interested in your own thoughts on this  too.

Philip







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20060529/a2dc24b0/attachment.html>