Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

The story is, IMHO, slightly more complex, as the Clinton administration
was responding to pressure from the EU, and the trademark lobby.  See 	
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf
starting at about [*pg 62].

On Fri, 3 May 2002, James Love wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>; <james.love@cptech.org>; <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
> >
> > Jamie,
> >
> > Was ICANN put in place by the sole action of the US DoC ?
> >
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> 
>      Pretty much in the beginning....  The US DoC wants to have an
> international framework for managing the DNS, and the White Paper and the
> handpicked ICANN board was the Clinton Administration solution.  After the
> Lynn proposal, there is a big debate over where everything should go next.
> What will be ICANN 2?   We would like to see the various DoC ICANN contracts
> rebid, so ICANN 1 can present its final version of the Lynn/Board/staff
> plan, and others can present different ideas.   Right now there are many
> proposals floating around that are quite different from the
> ICANN/Board/Staff proposals, and I believe, have much more support in the
> Internet community.  For the most part, the alternatives would have either
> more of a public/user role in electing the ICANN board members, or would
> dramatically reduce ICANN's centralized power making.   In a new
> competition, we would go back first principles about DNS management, and not
> necessarily have to work around the edges of the Lynn proposal.
> 
>    People who oppose a rebid can vote against it.  This is not binding on
> anyone.  But a vote would let everyone, including DoC and the ICANN board,
> what people think.   I don't know why there is so much opposition  to voting
> ( by the public) in ICANN.   It is certainly is *not* the case there there
> exists a consensus in favor of the basic Lynnn plan, but that is where the
> DNSO and the ICANN board is headed.   I think a vote would be interesting
> and important.  It should take place fairly soon, certainly before the end
> of May, so people who care what we think, can at least have some better
> measure of this.  .
> 
> Also, it seems like a flaw if the Chair of the GA can simply block these
> votes based upon his personal views.
> 
>  Jamie
> 
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

--
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