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

["James Love" <love@cptech.org>]

Vint, I would suggest a much different model for the governments.   Giving
(some) governments a direct role in choosing (some) of the directors will
blur issues such as the legal authority of the entity and its accountability
to the public, and raises a number of concerns over the future of freedom on
the Interent, in a world where repressive governments have a claim for
representation.  What are you going to tell China?  You can't serve?   If
the issue is funding for ICANN, then it may be more appropriate to think
about a multinational contract model.  Right now there is a contract with
one government, the USA.  Perhaps if other governments want to fund ICANN,
and want to participate more directly, they could negotiate a joint
contract.   With a contract model there can at least be some clarity with
respect to the limits of ICANN's authority and mission.   Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
To: "Jonathan Weinberg" <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <pdeblanc@usvi.net>;
<vcerf@mci.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization


> It reflects the evolution of thinking since jan 24 - the nominations
process
> was one area that stuart left kind of loose, not knowing what he might
hear
> from the GAC. I think an IETF-like nominations process might work, with a
> gov't slate selected by nom committee and approved (or not) by the gov't
> folks.
>
> vint
>
> At 03:58 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, vint cerf wrote:
> >> the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
> >> on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
> >> among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.
> >
> >Vint --
> >
> >        This is confusing.  Stuart's document indicates that under his
> >proposal *other* trustees (sec. I.A.1.b) would be generated by a
> >Board-selected nominating committee, but it says nothing about a
> >nominating committee for the government-selected trustees.  On the
> >contrary, Stuart's document says simply that these trustees should be
> >"nominated by governments (process to be determined)."  It amplifies that
> >this selection process "should be left to the governments, although it
> >could be imagined that these selections could be made either by regional
> >governmental organizations or, alternatively, by the ICANN Governmental
> >Advisory Committee."
> >
> >        Does your statement reflect a newer version of the proposal?
> >
> >Jon
> >
> >
> >Jonathan Weinberg
> >weinberg@msen.com
>
> --
> 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