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

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

I must say that I am rather amazed at all of the bits and pixels being
burned even asking whether the GA should hold a vote/straw-poll on the 
question of whether the GA should encourage (or not) the US DoC to 
consider other candidates when deciding what to do when the various MoU's, 
CRADAs, purchase orders and such it has with ICANN come up for renewal, 
replacement, or extension later this year.

(Please note that I used neither the word "rebid" nor "contract" as those 
are not quite correct, and when talking to the USG one has to be very 
precise about what one means.)

Several points:

First is that the Names Council has rendered its opinion on the "reform"
plan.  The GA has no less a right to do the same; there is nothing that 
says that the GA may not express its sense on a matter.  I would suggest 
that the GA should not bind itself to a Procrustean bed of its own making. 

It is perfectly appropriate, and indeed it is right and proper, for the GA 
to stand up and make its opinion known.

Second, there is no other defined place in ICANN which is open to the
degree that the GA is open; the at-large having been dispatched in Ghana.

This makes the opinion of the GA all that more important.

Third, there are two issues: The question of the disposition of the
MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder is one issue.  The other is the Lynn "plan".  Let
me deal with the latter first.  I was quoted in Salon as saying something
to the effect that the best use of that plan is as kindling to start a
fire.  I hold to the opinion that the Lynn plan is a blend of unworkable,
unaccountable, and naive financial and business practices; a closed system
of regulation of public matters without public participation; and a
roadmap to personal aggrandizement by some of those pushing the plan.  

But the lack of viability and wisdom of the Lynn plan is not the question
that Jamie asked.

The question he asked was for the GA to express its opinion on the matter
of the disposition by the US of the MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder later this
year.  My feeling is that is more than merely a valid issue, that it is an
issue of importantance.

Fourth, the question of the disposition of the MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder is 
not a monolithic yes/no question.  That package of legal arrangements 
contains many distinct obligations and duties.  These can be separated and 
treated individually.  Let me illustrate by observing that "the IANA 
function" (which ICANN performs via the purchase order) could, and in the 
opinion of many, ought to be spun-out to a distinct entity while leaving 
other functions with ICANN.

(In case anyone is interested, I, as have several others, suggested that 
ICANN be evolved into several distinct entities, each with limited duties 
and thus limited powers -- http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm )

Fifth, even those of us like me - California-centric Americans ;-) -
realize that that whatever is done with these legal agreements, it
represents yet another action of US hegemony over this bundle of Internet
issues.  It seems to me that the question of how the US might proceed in 
actually accomplishing the disposition of the MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder is a 
forum in which one can raise and face the question of how to devolve this 
US control into something more acceptable to the sensitivities of the 
majority of the worlds people who don't live in the US without allowing 
ICANN, or whatever it "evolves" into, to become a body without 
accountability and without oversight.
 
So my thought is this: The GA ought to be what its name says it is - an 
assembly open to "general" matters, in other words, any matter.  It should 
not feel constrained by artifical subject matter ropes that have not 
constrained its sister body the Names Council.

If a member of the GA places a question, and that question obtains 
cognizable visibility as a matter of interest and concern, then the GA 
ought to proceed with all deliberate speed to discuss the matter *and* to 
obtain the sense of the membership on that question that was put forth.

		--karl--





--
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