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

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

Milton, I don't think we are in fundamental disagreement about the
significance of the White Paper.  It came at the end of a
consensus-development process and documented the consensus that was
reached.  That's why I used the word "codified", which I understand to
mean the memorialization of a set of principles that have been settled.

ICANN was established out of this documented consensus, which provides a
source of ICANN's principles on the points it addresses until some
different consensus emerges and is documented.  The overwhelming
consensus documented in the White Paper is that stability should be
ICANN's first priority.  And it is policy, too (As Kent Crispin points
out: "There is no substantive difference.  From my dictionary: Policy --
"Any governing principle, plan, or course of action.").

The same is true of the other points I raise.

Stuart

At 5:59 PM -0400 6/15/01, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Clearly you are completely unfamiliar with the history of the
>US Commerce Dept process that produced the White Paper.
>The original request for comments asked for suggestions of
>guiding principles. "Stability" was a principle that emerged over-
>whelmingly from the comments of the public. The Commerce
>Dept simply recognized this as a consensus point. It also was
>ratified by the International Forum on the White Paper.
>
>In short, there is a well-documented consensus process that
>produced an adherence to "stability" as a guiding principle for
>ICANN. It is not "derived from the documents." The documents
>were derived from the bottom up process.
>
>--MM
>
>>>>  "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> 06/15/01 03:41PM >>>
>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

-- 

__________________
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