[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] three issues regarding proposals for reorganization

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jamie and all,

  You pose some great questions that need answering.
(See more and answers that we have below)

James Love wrote:

> Alejandro and members of the NCC,
>
>    For purposes of thinking about reorganizations, three themes we think
> about are:
>
> 1.  How much could the decision making at ICANN be decentralized?

  The more the better.  As has been discussed in the past if you
recall Jamie, a centralized model for ICANN was and remains
a untenable and unworkable model.

>
>
> It would seem to us that few decisions have to be centralized.  Why is the
> centralized model the main or only thing that the ICANN board is
> considering?

  Our [INEGroup's] evaluation is that the present and past ICANN
BOD and staff by in large doesn't understand any other type of
model other than a centralized one.  As such, the ICANN BoD
seemingly not wanting to "Have the baby" so to speak, will not
seriously consider a decentralized model.  That's a big problem.

>  And has the board really considered other models for
> coordination?

  We [INEGroup] don't believe that they have seriously done so, no.

>
>
> How important is it to have all three main functional areas together?  Could
> ICANN focus only on the names issues, and leave the numbering and protocol
> coordination to others?

  They could yes IOHO.  However there are serious technical implications
in doing so especially with IP allocation.

>
>
> 2.  What are the consequences of registrar and registry interests seeking to
> control ICANN?

  This is a huge and difficult question to answer.  There are many known
consequences as well as unknown ones...

>
>
> Some of the proposals from the registrar/registry community seem to crowd
> out (even more than now ) influence by consumer interests.   If ICANN is
> able to control entry into the registry/registrar business, and is
> controlled by registries and registrars, then it begins to look like a
> cartel.

  Indeed this seems to be true now, and getting more so as time passes.
So, yes ICANN looks allot like a cartel even now.

>   Is ICANN a regulator of registrar/registries?

  Not yet.  But that seems to be the direction that some of the BoD
and most of the staff wish for it to go.

>  Is ICANN protecting
> consumers from bad registries/registrars?

  Not at all IOHO.  In fact with it's oversight responsibility it has
done nearly nothing to curb registry and registrar abuse to date.

>  If so, can it do this while
> having employees or representatives from registrars and registries on the
> ICANN board and the DNSO?  As you know, even the NCC is full of persons who
> work for registrars or registries.

  We believe that this could be done, but that the specter of conflict of
interest
would overshadow good decision making.  Self interest of those registries
and registrars would be too compelling for honest judgments to be made
unless there is a stakeholder check and balance, which there is not presently.

>
>
> What would ICANN look like (and do) if it was controlled entirely by domain
> holder interests?

  Much different I personally would suspect.  Our members are of the belief
that just domain name holder interests are not nearly sufficient to adequately
address or manage effectively or ethically.

>
>
> 3.   Does the current ICANN board believe in broad based popular democracy?
> If not, can it find a legal mechanism that would prevent it from doing
> things that would be truly unpopular and unwise?

  Two very good questions here that are very closely related as well.
Our answer is No, and No to both.

>
>
> The Lynn proposal seems to seek much broader powers to act, unencumbered by
> consensus rules or the need to obtain non-coercive contracts for services.
> This seems the opposite of what is needed.   If the board rejects popular
> control, it must come up with structural changes that truly restrict ICANN's
> powers.

  We would surely agree with this.  In fact the lynn plan as it is
referred to, is seriously flawed in part just because of this
particular problem.

>
>
>   Jamie
>
> --------------------
> James Love, mailto:james.love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org
> voice +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040, fax +1.202.234.5176
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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