Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

["James Love" <love@cptech.org>]

Vint,

I would first ask the GAC to consider if it could address its concerns
through the vehicle of a contract, rather than putting people on the board.
The GAC concerns should be about policies and tasks, not about people.
The advantages of the contract is that it is more transparent in terms of
mission, and denies ICANN the aura of government authority, and I think
these are both positives.    Since this seems to be mostly about money and
authority, and I would ask the GAC if there is anything it expects or wants
out of ICANN that it cannot put into a contract, and I would ask GAC what it
is willing to pay for the services it wants.  Right now there is much
dissatisfaction among non-US actors with the USG's sole control.  So, I
would ask the GAC if it can agree on an alternative body to sign the
contract.   If the GAC can't do this, the next step would seem to be ask the
USG if it was interested in a joint contract with like minded governments
that it was willing to share power with, and if it had any money to put into
ICANN.

Next, I would accept the fact that ICANN itself is not a loved institution
among the Internet commnity, and I would respond to legitimate concerns over
the power ICANN seems to be seeking, and do much more to inspire trust.  It
doesn't help to have well compensated ICANN employees demanding to vote in 2
DNSO constitutencies, while ICANN is about to strip the NCC of its voting
rights.   It doesn't inspire trust to abandon the independent review panel,
and have Louie propose an ADR system for complaints that will cost the
public more than $5,000 just to raise an issue of governance.   It doesn't
inspire confidence to have no exit rules regarding staff or board making
money on ICANN related business after they leave.   It doesn't inspire
confidence to use a "beauty contest" to decide who gets a multimillion .org
registry contract, and not listen to NGOs who use .org domains.  It doesn't
inspire confidence to increasingly put a high price tag on having a voice in
ICANN.  It doesn't inspire confidence to terminate the few elected board
members now, before a new system is in place, just because the board can't
tolerate two (of 19) critics.   It doesn't inspire confidence to litigate
whether or not board members can see the books (what is anyone hidding?).

Before the DOC just dumps ICANN, I would appoint a committee of its
respected critics to proposal an alternative to the Lynn proposal, and see
if they can come up with something  better.  There are lots of good ideas,
but perhaps so many that none gets the attention that the deeply flawed Lynn
proposal gets.    I would put truly independent critics and outsiders on
this counter proposal committee, rather than load it up with past ICANN
insiders.   Specifically, I would exclude anyone who has served on the ICANN
board, who works for a registry or registrar, or who has done an paid for
for ICANN.   And let the board decide which "reform" proposal to use as its
baseline for discussions.

  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
To: "James Love" <love@cptech.org>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization


> Jamie,
>
> thanks for this additional input which I will share with the other
> board members. If you have some specific ideas about alternative
> structures that will both solve the apparent problems and work
> better than the strawman proposal, please do continue to work on
> them and share with others.
>
> vint
>


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html