Re: [ga] A note on Lynn's paper

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> [This is Thomas speaking only for himself, not in his capacity as
> the GA chair.]
>
> Here's just a short list of some issues I have with Lynn's proposal.
> I'm afraid it's too late (and I'm too sleepy) to produce a more
> coherent text.
>
> 1. Lynn talks about "Internet-speed" effectivity.  ICANN is supposed
> to be effective at what job precisely?  Policy development in most
> cases shouldn't require "Internet-speed" effectivity.

  Of course policy decisions should not be at internet speed.
But all due but prudent haste should be taken.

>
>
> 2. He seems to consider government participation a cure to all the
> problems he perceives with at large elections, including that
> considerations other than the stability and security of the net
> could influence voters.

  Isn't this where the ICANN Experiment started.  It was government
that felt that this effort/experiment should be taken over by private
industry back in '97 -'98...    I don't think that private industry
will desire this approach, and government is not suited nor want's
it back either.

> However, there's no reason why governments
> should behave any better.  In fact, the absurdities around the
> selection of the presidency of the European Central Bank point in
> the opposite direction, as do some experiences with the 2000 at
> large elections - at least in Germany, the national argument was (in
> my recollection) mostly used by persons and groups close to the
> administration, and likely to influence governmental appointments to
> an ICANN board.
>
> 3. Governments are supposed to pay for their participation.  They
> are also supposed to pay their fees to the United Nations, and we
> all know what, for instance, the US do there.

  Yes the US was late in paying it's UN dues.  Not surprising in that
the US accounts for about 70% of the UN's budget...

>  Now, what do you
> believe happens if .kids finds some more congressmen supporting that
> idea, and some of these congressmen sit in the right committee?

  So far from our inquiries this is not a consideration.

>  It
> will be fun to watch how some of the more powerful nations may be
> excluded from the GAC, and what happens then.  Also, the board
> structure is kind of balanced.

  The Board is far from balanced presently.  That is why an At-Large
in sorely needed where 51% or 9 seats on the board are elected
by that At-Large...

> How realistic is the idea that
> government appointees on the board could be overriden on a somewhat
> regular basis?  How much is this "balance" really worth?

  It would not be a balance either.  Therefore it would have little worth

in that sense.  However the worth or well entrenched government
contractors in big industry would tip the balance even further
but perhaps slightly differently in the favor of the supply side or
big international business interests.

>
>
> 4. ICANN is supposed to focus on a certain mission.  As illustrated
> by the .kids example, it seems illusorical to believe that direct
> government involvement with the board would prevent mission creep.
> Just the opposite seems likely to happen.

  The example of the .KIDS TLD bill before congress is not a good
example.  Rather that bill, which INEGRoup supports is one that
would aid in restoring balance in several well articulated and
documented ways.

>
>
> 5. Process.  Current process is considered a problem for
> effectivity.  Well, quite frankly, there are a few simple changes
> which could make current process a whole lot more efficient (Johnson
> and Crawford suggest some, including _reasonable_ deadlines for
> consensus development [these are sorely lacking, in practice either
> being "yesterday" or "when it's done"]; staff support in drafting
> documents may be another one).  Implementation errors don't mean
> that the principles of current process are all that bad.

  The current process's have been and remain terribly skewed
if not non existent.  Implementation as well of the already
improperly determined policies such as the UDRP and
Registry and Registrar contracts are stark and well
articulated terrible examples.

>
>
> 6. As has been noticed by many already, the board would be mostly
> self-selecting (indirectly, but still).  Someone (I think it was
> Dave Farrar) compared it to the IOC.  Well, we all know the
> corruption scandals in that particular committee.  A self-selecting
> board is about the worst tool we can find if the objective is to
> find high-quality individuals.

  Agreed.  However we already have a BoD that still has the
"Boardsquatters" still seated, a board that's last elections
were terrible managed and thereby some recent BoD members
are seated that have a questionable legitimacy.

>  In particular, a board as powerful
> as the one suggested by Lynn can not be expected to be open for
> possibly necessary future reform and critical reassessment, since
> there are few incentives for such activities.  Also, it would
> continue to strive for more power.

  Good point here.  Sounds allot like more of the same as we have
now, except perhaps much worse...

>
>
> 7. Independent review. It's, quite frankly, outrageous how the
> planned independent review panel is denoted as a "waste" in Lynn's
> paper.  When there are no workable mechanisms for the internet
> community at large to replace members of the board performing badly,
> and when the board can cast policy as it likes to, such a panel is
> more necessary than ever before.  Because, otherwise, the internet
> community may end up in a situation where the only thing which can
> be done is to deliberately ignore ICANN policy.  In fact,
> independent review and reconsideration mechanisms are a _necessity_
> to assure that ICANN is "effective" in casting not just some, but
> the right kind of policy, in a fair and reasonable manner, following
> whatever process is ultimately established.
>
> Finally, let me note that a lot of good observations can be found in
> the Johnson & Crawford paper published by icannwatch.org.  Read it,
> it's worth the itme.

  I did.  It was pretty good, but lacked adequate detail on the
determination of what consensus really is and how it is determined...
This is a fairly critical omission...

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> ALSC forum fall-back address:         <alsc-forum@does-not-exist.org>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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