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

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

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.

"ICANN's rigorous bottom-up, policy development process?" Have I been
inhabiting a different universe? It seems that the words do not meet the
meaning: if rigorous means "strongly effective," as it usually does (as in
a "rigorous proof" in mathematics), this author is in the wrong universe.
If it means the narrow meaning implied by the last sentence, namely,
"hard to get through," then we're even on the same planet.  ICANN has
no bottom up policy development process, and that's about as "rigorous"
as one can get.  But all that aside, at least SOME policy statement was
made, which is progress, in a manner of speaking -- there is something
to talk about.

Bill Lovell

> 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.
>
> --
> 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

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
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