[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Reform: Role of ITU

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

Jamie and all,

James Love wrote:

> I appreciate Milton's comments below, and also the many postings by others
> on this topic.  The fact that there is widespread opposition to ITU having a
> role in ICANN related issues is clear.

  Yes it is clear.  The ITU's history which Richard Hill posted on earlier
as well as my response is one of several reasons that the ITU is considered
fairly broadly as more trouble than they are worth.  I don't happen to
completely share that view, but do have some reservations as to the
potential scope of the ITU's proposed role.

>  I would, however, like to clarify
> what I have been addressing.  ITU made a narrow proposal, *not to take over
> ICANN*, but to participate in a discussion over the boundaries of ICANN's
> policy making.

  Here we disagree Jamie.  Our members thought that the ITU proposal
had some good points that should be pursued but their proposal was
farly broad and potentially far reaching...

>  It was this narrow proposal that I found interesting.  Note
> also that already WIPO has engaged ICANN in a topic that WIPO finds
> interesting, the ADR for trademarks and domain names.  In the ITU case, the
> outcome seemed more likely to limit ICANN's policy making than was the case
> in the WIPO consultation.
>
> The notion that ICANN will have internal brakes against inappropriate policy
> making is appealing, but I think shattered by the Lynn proposal.  It is
> possible that Alejandro, Vint and others will listen to the outpouring of
> criticism against the Lynn proposal, and offer something much different, but
> at this point I don't think it is obvious that the board finds itself in
> fundamental disagreement with Lynn/McLaughlin/Touton etc.  Nor has the US
> DOC shown much interest in acting as tough as some members of the US
> Congress.

  Very good points here Jamie.  Indeed I am told through various sources
in congress that the concern regarding ICANN's list of shortcomings is too long
now to remain unaddressed in a strong and meaningful way, and has as you know
ask the Bush administration to take some actions that congress will be
recommending sometime this month...

>
>
> ITU may not be the best body to limit ICANN's power.  But I would like to
> hear some alternatives *other than* self restraint (which of course we all
> hope for).

  Many alternatives have already been suggested.  The best of all of them
is that an At-Large be put into place that elects 9 BoD seats and is open to
any and all stakeholders of interested parties without incumbency...

>  I asked if the GAC should have a formal terms of reference for
> ICANN.  I did not get any comment on that proposal.
>
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <discuss@icann-ncc.org>; <richard.hill@itu.int>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 3:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Reform: Role of ITU
>
> > Although I am not all that favorable to some of the
> > ideas being floated about moving things to the ITU, as
> > someone with a lot of knowledge of the telephone industry
> > and its history I want to agree with Mr. Hill on this:
> >
> > >>> "Hill, Richard" <richard.hill@itu.int> 05/01/02 08:44AM >>>
> > > whatever ITU may have done 15 years ago was, I think, a reflection
> > > of government policies at the time...
> >
> > ....which policies have mostly changed.
> >
> > The ITU is dominated by the telecom firms and govt telecom
> > ministries. The idea that telecom firms want to or could squash the
> > Internet the way that they tried to do in the 1980s or early 90s,
> > when it was new, should not be a serious part of this debate.
> >
> > What makes it even
> > less relevant as an argument is that today the Internet
> > industry is dominated by telecom firms, too. One could also
> > argue that telcos play a disproportionate role in ICANN
> > as well. Certainly the DNSO Business constituency is
> > basically a few telcos (AT&T, BT, Telstra) in alliance with
> > IP interests.
> >
> > The relevant issue for us is, which forum and which set of
> > procedures are the most balanced and which provides the
> > best forum for advancing the policy objectives we share?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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