[ga] Re: Redefining the Box

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Please read the following comments from some real smart folks;

Peter de Blanc wrote:

The ccTLDs need to maintain close contact with the other constituencies.
Perhaps the idea of ccTLD holding seats on the Names Council for policy
development would work. Assuming the ccTLDs had a SO, the ccTLD reps on
the NC would NOT participate in voting for NC-elected ICANN board
directors.

Peter de Blanc


Karl wrote:

It may have been hashed and rehashed, in private, by those who somehow
think that ICANN, a California Corporation, can declare itself immune from
the laws of the state in which ICANN chose to incorporate itself.

ICANN could also declare, with equally null effect, that its employees are
exempt from taxation and traffic laws ... or that pigs can fly.

Simply stated, the Board of Directors of ICANN has no power to nullify a
law duly passed by the legislature of its voluntarily chosen home,
California, and signed into law by the Governor of the state.

I posted my analysis quite some time ago:
http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members


Mr. Lovell wrote:

And this is supposed to be a "good?"  As a "technical coordination entity"
(hah!), ICANN never had any business poking its nose into who gets what
domain name.  Its only concern should be that the domain name works, and
let the parties go do battle somewhere else. I don't see where ICANN was
ever given any "model policy" agenda, and those who fall into the trap of
mindlessly adopting such jargon are only assisting in their own burial under

ICANN (and WIPO, etc.) red tape and what the law (in the U.S.) calls
"officious intermeddling."
]\
Bill Lovell


"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> I meant 'turn it into a separate, free-standing, body' (but the phrase was
> perhaps ambiguous, as it might have implied continuing ICANN control,
> sorry).
>
> I am coming to think this is also the answer for IP # function which
> should be separate from the DNS function and from IANA.

Obviously we are arriving at a consensus that mixing this technical
coordination body with a policy developing and implementation body is not
optimum.  Since we are looking so carefully at a new ccTLD org. and so
concerned with geographic diversity and since we need a wholly independent
body to keep an eye on registrars and registries there is a possibility to
arrange our SO structure to create a new body just for DN issues and public
policy matters.  We cannot just fake it and pretend ICANN is not making public
policy decisions so we had better deal with it.

Sincerely,
Eric

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html