Re: [wg-c] Reply to co-chair (was: CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting thegTLDs ...)

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Eric Brunner wrote:

> Position Paper E affords to the Names Council and the ICANN Board their
> first opportunity to reject the claim that some predicate condition(s)
> must be satisfied before ICANN may create its first gTLD.

That ability is not bound to any position paper or expressed views. In
both word and action the ICANN board has expressed their
predisposition to arbitrary and capricious action obstensibly justified by
unsubstantiated and/or unqualified claims of "consensus."


> Position Paper E is simply the first available specific instance of the
> general position articulated in Position Paper D and A, that ICANN has
> the capacity to act and that capacity to act includes its discretionary
> capacity to judge on merit and need.

ICANN should be an instrument of the will of the at large community,
something it has not at any time acted as. As mentioned above, ICANN has
not found it necessary to seek the aid of contribuatory documents in order
to justify its behaviour, or has changed them at whim to do so.  


> It is a consequence that my communities are the ones that are the direct
> beneficiaries, someone has to be the direct beneficiaries, but it is ICANN
> itself that benefits from discretionary substantive acts which are within
> its competency and charter.
> 
> Three claims are bandied about:
> 
> 	a) ICANN may not act (Rutkowski, Auerbach, etc)
> 	b) ICANN may not act in a discretionary manor (Meuller, Ambler, etc)
> 	c) ICANN may not act substantively (Chicoine, etc)
> 
> Meaningful consensus without excluding the proponents of each of the above
> camps isn't going to stick, if the fundamental proposition is contrary to
> their position, so why bother?
> 
> I expect the next big idea after Sheppard/Kleiman will be the return of the
> lottery -- the lengths people will go to to avoid either having to frame a
> critical process, or allow themselves to imagine ICANN operating, is more
> then I ever thought people could be pursuaded to endure.

It is my hope that the "next big idea" might be that which myself and
I believe others have suggested previously: adetermine which TLDs are
most desireable by the community ICANN purports to serve, and place the
operation of those TLDs up for bid. In doing so, the most objective
process and set of criteria may be applied to the selection process. No
lottery is necessary.
 
> I'm unchanged in my position, or my advise to others. Sheppard/Kleiman is
> junk, and Meuller/Sheppard is more junk. In this instance, the co-chair
> errs.

It is a simple matter to criticize. It is much more difficult to back such
criticism with substance. Simply labeling  other proposals as "junk" is
both non-communicative and non-productive. If you wish to assert a
specific position, how about doing so on the merits of those assertions
rather than resorting to simply being hostile?


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell                          
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/