[ga] Re: [Canwereplaceicann] Redoing the DNSO

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

Dave and all,

DPF wrote:

> On Thu, 16 May 2002 22:17:22 -0400, "James Love"
> <james.love@cptech.org> wrote:
>
> >Right now the DNSO is the main problem area in ICANN.. it is the SO that
> >doesn't have much power, and it is where all of the politics are.  The ASO
> >and PSO could disappear or be spun off, and the protocol and numbering
> >functions would continue to operate, because the ASO and PSO have strong
> >decentralized bodies that have long traditions of doing things.
>
> I think to put up a serious rival to ICANN as an applicant to DOC one
> has to start with the very high-level stuff before we get too
> detailed.  To my mind there are three main areas we need to get
> consensus on:
>
> 1) Functions
> 2) Structure
> 3) People

  Agreed so far.

>
>
> Starting with (3) first it is inevitable that any rival organisation
> will like ICANN have to emerge with initial directors.  The quality of
> these directors will be critical to the chances of DOC taking it
> seriously.

> They need to be people of stature such as Dave Farber whom

> the internet community will have confidence in.

  I don't think that the stature of whom might be the initial
new directors is all that important.  What is important
is that the Administration Act is upheld legally speaking.
And that means that the 5 original bidders will get
priority basically.

>  An absolute
> requirement should be that the initial directors are there only to
> establish the organisation and serve a short initial term (say one
> year) and that they are barred from election to the Board for say
> three to five years thereafter.  This will reassure that they are
> doing this as a public service only and it is not going to be empire
> building like ICANN.

  This is or should be absolutely essential.  We don't want any
"Board Squatters" like the ICANN has now...

>
>
> The requirement to stand down and not be eligible for re-election has
> to be entrenched so it can not be revoked by anything less than a
> unanimous board or super-majority membership decision.

  Yep.

>
>
> The functions are also key.  There have been some excellent proposals
> about a "thin" ICANN.  The best of these should be consolidated to
> define a limited cost effective organisation.  If one doesn't try to
> interfere with areas which work well like IETF, RIRs etc they will
> hopefully sign up.

  I think these org's will sign up anyway as long as the requirements
are not too onerous or costly.  However the IANA needs to
be kept into the fold...

>  ccTLDs are pretty close to establish self
> regulation and only need a service agreement with IANA so really only
> big function is gTLD selection and regulation.

  Good point..

>
>
> Once the functions are agreed on then the structure becomes easier.
> They key again IMO is entrenching provisions ensuring user rather than
> provider dominance so that a simple board majority can not change
> them.  As a general rule I like constitutional changes to be vested in
> the membership not the executive.

  Exactly right!

>
>
> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
> _______________________________________________
> Canwereplaceicann mailing list
> Canwereplaceicann@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/canwereplaceicann

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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