Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensusin favor of "reform" efforts

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

I could not disagree more with this analsysis.  The ICANN imagined in the
Lynn proposal has nothing to do with user interests.  It is a regime of,
by and for the "stakeholders".  Self-selected and self-perpetuating rule
by ICANN insiders, TLD and registry incumbents, and intellectual property
lawyers is not calculated to do anything good for users.


On Thu, 9 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> That said, there is one benefit with the Lynn proposal: It falls  
> clearly on one side of the expectations above.  And that's the  
> users' side, not the suppliers'.  In particular, the ICANN  
> envisioned by Lynn's propsoal is supposed to have the teeth  
> necessary to safeguard user interests.  It is designed in a way  
> which could balance the registries' and registrars' interests.  This 
> is worth keeping in mind.
> 

[...]
> 
> The next question you don't address clearly is: What could happen  
> after a re-bid?  (Whatever that means, in detail...)
> 
> The obvious options are: Another private entity pops up, ICANN  
> remains in charge, but is reformed, and the USG (or some  
> international government-backed organization, such as the ITU) may 
> take over.
> 
> Of these, the first option (a different private entity) seems to be  
> the one least likely.
> 

I wish I agreed, but I don't. The US is very sensitive to EU and other
concerns and wishes to have maximum distance from its 'failsafe' role in
running the DNS.  It wants the private solution very badly.

[....]
> Thus, the only options which remain realistic are: (1) A reformed  
> ICANN, and (2) an end of the privatization experiment.  You folks  
> don't seem to like the first option.  I find the latter one even 
> less desirable.

Thus, I also dispute the conclusion.

> Put into other words, a "successful" re-bid would mean public-sector 
> control over Internet policy.  Do you want THAT?  If so, please say 
> it openly.
> 

Not much chance of that happening.

> 
> To re-iterate my recommendation: Don't even try to use the GA as a  
> channel for calling for a re-bid.  Do that through outside channels, 

"You start where you are".


-- 
		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