Re: [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-03-28 14:33:13 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>The Names Council felt that the greatest danger of mission creep 
>lay in the areas of security, consumer protection and the creation 
>of infrastructure for at-large membership.

I object against mixing draft conclusions which specifically address 
ICANN's mission with remarks on one particular model for public 
participation with ICANN.

The risks and benefits of an at large membership can (and should) be 
discussed and addressed when the names council considers mechanisms 
for the selection of board members, and for structuring public 
input. In such a discussion (to which I'm looking forward), an 
at-large membership should be considered together with alternative 
options, such as the Lynn proposal's idea of governmental 
involvement with the nomination of board members (which would, most 
likely, also have a large impact on possible mission creep).

Please remove the words "and the creation of infrastructure for 
at-large membership" from the draft conclusions.

>Recommendation 2. ICANN's mission should not be extended beyond 
>that outlined in the note "What ICANN Does" .

Kind regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/