Re: [ga] The NC & ICANN Reform

[Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Even the recent preliminary proposal submitted by Karl Auerbach and cited at 
> http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm adopts the fundamental constructs (termed 
> modules) proposed by Stuart.  

I don't quite agree with that assessment.  In my proposal, the functional 
units are entirely distinct and separate legal entities with absolutely no 
common staff, management, directorship etc etc.  They all operate with 
very long "arms-length" relationships with one another.

The Lynn "plan" is a big mushpot - an expansive bureaucratic empire
accountable to no one and with lots of room for opaque processes and 
decision brokering.

In my proposal every module would be accountable in several senses: First,
each module's mission would be constrained, indeed the
operational/administrative modules would be highly constrained.  Second,
most modules would have some clearly defined, and strong form of public
accountability - often with chains that the public could pull.  (This
isn't well spelled out in the existing draft.)  The reason I say "most
modules" is that the protocol administrator, as I see it, really is a
clerical job for the IETF and needs no particular public aspects.  Third, 
the clear separation between modules tends to expose and disclose any 
kinds of collusive action.

By-the-way, a *very* interesting document was just posted by Paul Hoffman.
We usually hear from in the context of internationalized DNS.  He has
written what I believe are some important points of view with regard to
ICANN reform:

	http://www.proper.com/ICANN-notes/dns-root-admin-reform.html

		--karl--



--
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