Re: [ga] Re: Input needed

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 17:48 27/02/02 -0500, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Joop,
>
>Susan and David's proposal explores the creation of a cross-Supporting
>Organization (which in my view seems to be no more than a new label for a
>General Assembly removed from the DNSO).    Additionally, they seek
>"substantial" Board representation "to reflect the views of those who are
>contractually bound by or very likely directly impacted by ICANN’s 
>policies"
>(read this as registries, registrars and resellers).
>
>Commercial interests already have too much power within ICANN.  I cannot
>support proposals which would substantially enhance such interests even
>further at the expense of registrants and the broader user community.
>
>As a long-time participant in the ICANN process, what structural model would
>you endorse?

David and Susan's report makes many observations that I agree with.
In particular this one:
"Even if many governments were to agree to support Mr. Lynn's 
"restructured" ICANN, the resulting assertion of power would be based on 
force, not consent of the governed. And there would be a serious risk that 
many Internet participants would "route around" such claimed authority -- 
thereby breaking the edge-to-edge connectivity the preservation of which 
was a central reason for ICANN's creation. "


It analyzes the dangers of Mr Lynn's proposal quite well.
Interestingly it makes the point that those who have signed a contract with 
ICANN, may consider not to have any deal with the different animal ICANN 2 
and may successfully argue so in Court.
The ccTLD's will be less tempted than ever to deal with such a beast, 
unless coerced by their governments.
But the proposed solutions focus on the interests of the registries and 
registrars, especially the viability of the business model of new 
registries (understandable from David and Susan's point of view) and a 
misty "consensus" of the registrants. That part is not so realistic.


This part of David's proposal especially scares me:
"
if a report is not forthcoming, allowing the Board to itself draft (or 
outsource the drafting of) the report to be considered in determining 
whether or not a consensus has been achieved. (The substantive requirements 
for such a report would remain the same, but there is no to need hold the 
Board hostage to inaction by inept or hostile factions who may have control 
over the lower levels of the policy development processes.) "

In practice this will give Stuart (where the drafting will be outsourced) 
even more power than he is asking for.

What structural model I endorse? I have written about that as far back as 
'98 to the DoC. Many permutations are possible and politics is the art of 
the possible. The important thing for me is: no governance without 
representation and consent of the governed.



--Joop

--
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