[ga] Some remarks on motion 2

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

How does the resolution relate to the independent review panel?
 The resolution explicitly says that accountability is one of the
 principles which need to be honoured and explicitly says that
 this includes independent review of decisions. 

How does the resolution relate to At Large participation?
 The resolution explicitly says that meaningful individual 
 and non-commercial participation is necessary.

What does "meaningful" mean?
 Informed participation will happen under the condition that
 there is a certain responsiveness -- of course, individual
 user interests will not be the only source of input which
 has to be regarded as paramount. But if it doesn't make a
 difference whether someone delivers input or not, that
 someone will stop delivering input (with some obvious
 exceptions, http://www.byte.org/jw/jwk3.jpg). The input 
 will turn into destructive, frustrated action.

What about innovation, competition and freedom?
 These are very broad principles which I think everyone agrees 
 with. I have yet to see anyone opposing e.g. "fairness". I think 
 they are so broad that adding them here doesn't help much.
 Even Microsoft has a US lobby group called "Freedom to Innovate".
 The motion concentrates on the issues which are at the core
 of the debate.

Why is stability of the Internet mentioned *again*?
 When we are even considering moving the coordination of key 
 Internet resources, we should demonstrate that we are not only 
 playing some game, but are acting responsibly and have the 
 stability of the DNS in mind. Obviously, the technical 
 switching is a matter of seconds, but all the other aspects
 of switching are slightly more complicated.

So this one is simply more moderate than the other motion?
 Please read the two motions again, it's a bit more subtle than that.
 It is also about who should deal with the question if ICANN should
 fail to improve the situation regarding these basic principles.

Why does the resolution mention the "international Internet community"
and "governments" instead of the "U.S. government"?
 The internationalization of the coordination of key Internet
 resources which has occurred (and many reasons have been mentioned 
 why this internationalization is still in its early stages) has 
 to continue. Turning the issue over to the U.S. government is
 not a strategy which will necessarily result in a model which
 promotes internationalization.

But the ICANN/DoC MoU ends on 30 September 2002?
 A well known fact and most probably one of the reasons for the
 current reform process. Still, as mentioned above, if ICANN fails
 to deliver on the basic principles, the process has to be
 international. Maybe there are better approaches than contracting
 out the job by the U.S. government? This is certainly one of the 
 questions that will be asked if the basic principles are not met
 and the Internet community and governments have to think about
 alternative models.

Why is the "international Internet community" mentioned, not only
"governments"?
 Turning the issue over only to a single government or even several
 governments is at odds with the goal of self-regulation of the
 Internet community. Of course governments would play a significant
 role in such a case (see the AU and UK government consultation
 processes under way), but the Internet community should not sit
 idly by and wait.

So you're happy with ICANN as it is?/So you're happy with the
Stuart Lynn reform plans?
 No and no, respectively. But the resolution just mentions the
 basic principles which *have* to be honoured. I hope that
 everyone delivers input for a (realistic!) reform which honours
 the principles.

But why should we even bother to remind ICANN of these principles?
 Frankly, I believe that (a) the U.S. DoC has little interest to 
 open up the Pandora's box once again, (b) both the U.S. DoC and
 key players in the Internet community don't want the ITU to take
 over, (c) most players want to keep private-sector coordination,
 (d) all players plan to stay around. For these reasons, any 
 successor of ICANN would have the same players and problems as 
 ICANN, and the most probable successor of the current ICANN is a 
 reformed ICANN. The principles mentioned in the resolution make 
 clear what *we* expect from any successor of the current ICANN. 
 If the reformed ICANN does not provide this, we have to look 
 elsewhere.

Why is everyone called to deliver input? How does the resolution
relate to the E&R Committee working papers?
 I hope that the little time left to deliver input to e.g. the
 E&R Committee is used by everyone. Personally, I feel having
 wasted a lot of energy on this discussion which should have
 gone more towards analysing the working papers and their
 implications. In other words: *Let's move on and do our work*.

With this, happy voting and 
may the Force be with you,
/// Alexander 

--
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