RE: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

David,
FWIW, I think you have made absolutely the right decision, but I would not
be so sure that ICANN is willing to grant free reign to governments over
selection of Board members. If Vint Cerf's response on another thread is to
be believed, "The idea is to find the best candidates filling a variety of
criteria - geographic dispersion, board experience, Internet awareness, fund
raising ability, appreciation for the wide range of interests and opinions
among the Internet's constituents, etc." If so, candidates will be selected
from those with experience of large private corporate sector directorships,
with favor being shown for those with $5million p.a. political lobbying
budgets.

If we add to that, Esther Dyson's statement at Accra for an At Large that is
"Issue" based, rather than geographically based, and we factor in the
undeniable problem of giving less than friendly world governments equitable
power with the US and its allies over internet governance, one can very
easily arrive at the conclusion that we are heading for a world run by
Corporations, where Governments do not even exist.

Perhaps now would be a good time to order a copy of "Rollerball" from your
local video store.

Regards,
Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of David
Farrar
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:04 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization


> Peter,
>
> Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on ICANN's funding
issues.
> I'm sure that you can appreciate that ICANN needs to be run as a business
> that is reasonably assured of a steady cash flow.  In order to return the
> organization to a state of normalcy, is there a funding formula would most
> likely be acceptable to the ccTLD community?

Many ccTLDs have funded ICANN very generously considering that they have no
contractural relationship with ICANN - they have been donations made as good
will.

However ICANN has effectively declared war on the ccTLDs by saying that
depsite
us flatly rejecting without even discussing your proposed contracts we are
going to try and get your govts (by offering them board seats) to coerce you
all into signing non negiotable contracts which gives ICANN total power over
the ccTLD.

Now if that is what Lynn wishes to do well he can try.  But don't expect
ccTLDs
to fund ICANN to try and do them over.  That is just plain stupid.

I am only speaking on my own behalf but let me say that with the ccTLD I
belong
to, I will be voting not to pay ICANN a single cent more because of the Lynn
proposal.  You do not fund your enemy.  And let me say that in the past I
have
been one of the biggest advocates locally for funding ICANN and working with
ICANN but the Lynn plan changes ICANN so fundamentally my stance has
changed.

DPF

--
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



--
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