Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

["M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>]

I understand and welcome your views, Brett, But I could not disagree more.

ICANN has many policies that are embodied in our charter documents 
that have not been separately and explicitly codified in a single 
policy document. For example, we have a policy derived from those 
documents that commit us to further the stability of the Internet. 
There has been no bottom-up process to codify that - except as was 
embodied in the founding of ICANN and in the finalization of those 
documents.

When there are important issues on the table, I will continue to 
summarize existing policies that may be embodied in those documents 
and elsewhere (including those that have been explicitly stated) and 
articulate them for the community. Particularly - as in this case - 
when I receive enquiries as to what our policy on a given topic may 
be. That is part of my job. This is no different than our restatement 
of IANA policies in ICP-1.

Articulating existing policies is very different from creating new 
policy. That requires consensus-based approaches. And I do not think 
any of us disagree on that.

I think we all understand our difference of views on this subject, 
and I doubt we will persuade each other. So it may be best to move 
on. But I will look forward to your specific comments.

With regards
Stuart

At 9:45 AM -0700 6/15/01, Bret Fausett wrote:
>The merits of the relative positions aside, I am concerned about a practice
>of drafting papers outside ICANN's rigorous bottom-up, policy development
>processes, calling it an attempt to codify existing policy, and then
>challenging anyone to go through the rigorous bottom-up, policy development
>process to change it.
>
>Again, the merits of the relative positions aside, I'm sure you can
>appreciate the *potential* for abuse in that kind of process. At this point,
>two and half years into the life of ICANN, if a clear policy has not already
>been written somewhere (and I'm referring to more than a few references to
>"authoritative roots" in ICANN's foundational documents), I'm not sure it
>ought to be created now in the name of "existing policy." Consensus
>policy-making is much harder work than that.
>
>I'll have more on the merits of the paper separately, but the process issues
>here are of concern.
>
>      -- Bret
>
>
>On 6/15/01 9:17 AM, "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> wrote:
>
>>  It seems, Milton, that academe has arrived at a new standard since I
>>  left two years ago. Anyone who agrees with you is "honest" and anyone
>>  who disagrees is not ;-). Well, well!
>>
>>  The basis for the statement that ICANN's policy is to support a
>>  single authoritative root is extensively articulated in my document
>>  and the references clearly cited. The White Paper, the Memorandum of
>>  Understanding, and the Articles of Incorporation give clear
>  > indication of ICANN's Policy. They are ICANN's charter documents. I
>  > suggest you read them again. They are not very hard to understand and
>  > their statements with regard to an authoritative single root and to
>>  competing roots are quite clear. My statement on ICANN Policy is not
>>  unilateral -- it is well-grounded in the community processes that led
>>  to the White Paper and to the formation of ICANN.
>>
>>  You may disagree. That's fine. It would make for a dull ICANN if
>>  everyone agreed on everything.
>>
>>  And I would encourage you to follow the appropriate processes if you
>  > would like to see the current policy changed.

-- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: lynn@icann.org
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html