[ga] "ICANN should be encouraged to adopt recommendations without ANY change -" ?

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>]

From: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@nic.AC>
"ICANN should be encouraged to adopt recommendations without ANY change -"
The concept of ICANN setting
> GLOBALLY "binding policy" in areas the members of the Board do not
> understand the issues in detail is fundamentally flawed.
====

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=12&DocID=482

"My job was only to express the board's opinion as a whole. Unfortunately
it had very few opinions, because it didn't know very much, and its
opinions were supposed to reflect a mostly nonexistent consensus."
                      - Esther Dyson

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@nic.AC>
To: "Richard Francis" <rfrancis@igovernance-consultants.com>
Cc: "CENTR GA" <ga@centr.org>; "AFTLD Secretariat" <secretariat@aftld.org>; "APTLD Secretariat" <sec@aptld.org>; "LACTLD
Secretariat" <mvaldes@nic.cl>; <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>; <africann@lists.gh>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [centr-ga] First Sight of revised draft ccNSO Bylaws ....


> Richard - thanks for this
>
> http://www.icann.org/legal/proposed-bylaws-revisions-13jun03.htm
>
> I too am not happy with the inappropriate time given to a GLOBAL
> community to discuss this important issue in depth - but let's move on
> to issues of substance.
>
> The Board will RATIFY in just over 1 week the above bylaws - despite
> breaking their own published procedures.
>
> Whilst it is up to each registry to decide, I think the draft is _much_
> better - but still not worthy of  ccTLD support.
>
> FYI Over 30 ccTLD (min 4 from each region) are required before the ccNSO
> comes into existence.
>
> IMHO the draft Bylaws need a little more tweaking/clarification to be
> within the range of acceptability to the majority of ccTLD registries.
>
> May I draw your attention to the completely NEW sections:
> Annex B: ccNSO Policy-Development Process (ccPDP)
> Annex C: Framework for the Scope of the ccNSO
>
> Annex B: clause 15 subsection 5 indicates that the General Council
> (senior legal advisor for those not familiar with US structures) shall
> decide which forum shall deal with an issue.  If it is within the ccNSO
> scope then the ccNSO PDP will handle it - subject to Board not being
> able to set Policy; if it is outside the ccNSO scope the Board reserves
> the right to set Recommendations which may become Policy.
>
> A current example - IETF produce a technical standard for iDNs - yet the
> ICANN Board will not allow those Registries that have contracts with
> ICANN to implement service using the approved IETF standard, despite
> indicating they would grant "permission" within WEEKS of the Rio meeting.
> The determination of technical standards of iDNs are outside of ICANN's
> core competence, and also outside of the ccNSO policy development
> process - yet they consider it a matter for Board "approval" to ratify a
> process many will know little about and the majority have not been
> involved in - yet have significant impact of those communities not
> reliant on the ASCII character set. This is wrong IMHO.
> ICANN should be encouraged to adopt recommendations without ANY change -
> and as quickly as possible - and let the community serve their local
> community requirements unhindered.
>
> My fundamental question - I want ICANN to succeed as a FORUM for
> discussion and for the development of industry BEST PRACTICE - in an
> open transparent and robust manner.  With Best Practice being adopted
> and by consensus becoming a Policy. The concept of ICANN setting
> GLOBALLY "binding policy" in areas the members of the Board do not
> understand the issues in detail is fundamentally flawed.  Much better
> for the ICANN structure to be SUPPORTING and SERVICING the needs of the
> GLOBAL community - by facilitating DIALOGUE and ensuring an INCLUSIVE
> forum.
>
>
> My fear is that some folks may see either membership of a Council or
> membership of the ICANN Board as a position of  power - rather than one
> of service and facilitation to a broader and culturally diverse internet
> community.
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Richard Francis wrote:
>
> >
> > People - -
> >
> > Go to the web page posted yesterday:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/legal/proposed-bylaws-revisions-13jun03.htm
> >
> > The draft has been prepared on the basis that the ICANN Board will
> > pass the Bylaws in Montreal and on the basis that there will be a
> > review of the performance and operation of the ccNSO to start, latest
> > on 15 December 2003 - presumably some time after the ICANN Carthage
> > meeting.
>
>
>
>

--
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