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

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

Thomas, several persons have indicated on this list that there are quite
different notions of what might replace ICANN, and I agree with this
completely.   Some of the proposes for dramatically shrinking ICANN's policy
making mandate or authority, or having a more distributed approach to policy
making,  lead away from a large complicated Internet world government type
model, for example, as several persons have noted.

I personally can think of lots of different ways the DNS could be managed,
many of them would seem to be reasonable, and some would not seem
reasonable.    I consider myself agonistic on the "best" management system.
The Lynn plan was shocking in the direction it went, very strong authority
and policy making mandate, tight board control over the election of board
members, elimination of accountability mechanisms, etc.

In an open competition, *different* proposals could be considered, on a more
level playing field, not expecting the incumbent ICANN board to be the
arbitrator.  The ICANN board committee on reform could not even bring in
outsiders, and it is hard to imagine the present board deciding to
dramatically reduce ICANN's powers or enhance bottom up power either, which
would be important if the DNS is controlled by a body with coercive power
and broad policy making authority.  One example of the problems with too
much board power is the fact that the GA is intimidated from offering
criticisms to the top down powers, who could (and already have proposed to)
eliminate the GA.

A DoC rebid would allow these different ideas to be considered by someone
else other than the ICANN BOD.  It is of course possible that the DoC would
do something worst than the ICANN board, left to its own devices.   But I
think the far more likely result is that the the competition would be the
ICANN Board's to lose, in the event that the ICANN board overreaches in
terms of too much power and too little accountability, and the alternatives
generated a lot of private sector and public support.   DoC is very
pro-privatization, as indicated most recently by the Evans letter to the US
Congress, and it is realistic about the need to have an international
framework, and we too can be clear about the need for an international
framework.

Finally, the idea that a recompete is a radical proposal would be more true
if it was not made in the context of the very radical Lynn proposal, and the
way the BOD is managing the "reform" process, which clearly excludes their
critics and avoids participation by independent voices, which in my mind, is
quite agressive.

Jamie

PS.... Thanks for allowing this vote to proceed, despite your personal
opposition.   That is quite fair.

--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html