Re: [ga] your comments

["Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
To: <tbyfield@panix.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 6:24 AM
Subject: [ga] your comments


> Why I bother to react to your nonsense is a mystery to me; must be some
> deep psychological thing.  But I'll take one last (I promise!) try:
>
I appreciate your comments in this forum.

> 1.  Lots of people have spent lots of time reacting to Lynn's paper.
> Indeed, it is absolutely clear that the vast majority of people involved
in
> the ICANN process agreed with its diagnosis of problems almost entirely,
> while there was lots more debate and disagreement on the prescription for
> solutions.

I am not sure that is an accurate characterisation of the RIR response.
see www.apnic.org/net_comm/icann/rir_statement/rir_statememt/html

They say that "ICANN should not be a policy developing body, but should
focus on coordination of informed external review of global policies" in
relation to address policies made by the RIRs and their existing processes.
Stuart points to the RIRs' insistence on being able to withdraw from ICANN
if ICANN creates policies they disagree with as an example of the
"difficulty in gaining the necessary voluntary and complete cooperation of
all the critical participants needed for ICANN to accomplish its mission"
(see p.10 of Stuart's paper). Yet this is similar to the sort of let out NSI
negotiated in its original contract with Commerce and ICANN.

I am sure that it is an inaccurate characterisation of the cctld response.

Centr's paper agrees that ICANN "in its current form cannot fulfil the goals
for which it was set up" but specifically declines to "comment on the
controversial statements with regard to ccTLD managers" in Stuart's paper.
(see www.centr.org/news/ICANN-response.html )

We in Asia Pacific have been a little more forthright, saying:
" APTLD suggests that it is important to understand that the failure to
reach agreements between ccTLDs and ICANN is not an indication of either
lack of support for an ICANN constituted along White Paper principles, or
that the continued stable global interoperability of the internet is not of
critical importance to members. However, the failure to reach agreements
needs to be taken into account in designing or reforming a structure to
prevent simply a repetition of the previous result. Without a change of
understanding, a new structure will not produce agreements.

The primary obstacle to reaching agreements was the failure by both parties
to satisfactorily establish whether there were any limits to the
"sovereignty" of the ccTLDs in relation to their policy-making role. Draft
contracts prepared by ICANN have tended to reflect and carry forward the
totally different contractual relationship necessary between ICANN and the
generic top level domains. For the g-TLDs, it is ICANN itself which has to
perform the role of the "local internet community". This requires it to
develop and manage policies, which is a function which it should not perform
in relation to ccTLDs. These difficulties, coupled with scepticism
concerning the independence of ICANN from the US Government and its
susceptibility to influence from major commercial interests have not
assisted the formation of agreement. Neither has the apparent adoption by
the staff of policies promulgated by the Government Advisory Committee,
despite their lack of acceptance by the Board, not having been developed by
the ICANN consensus-based policy development process. "


(see www.aptld.org/NEWS/200.html)


At the risk of overly stretching the medical analogy, Dr.Lynn's diagnosis is
akin to saying :
"this patient is dying of lung cancer from too much smoking. The cure is to
cut out smoking and pay for this radical surgery".

We say the patient is dying but from a heavy foot on the throat, which is
preventing the patient from getting fresh air and exercise.

 So, I agree with you Joe that that there has been disagreement over the
"prescription", and say this is likely if the problem continues to be
misdignosed.

>Where we got relatively little reaction was from the byfields
> and similar professional ICANN critics, who have lots of time to carp and
> either an unwillingness or an inability to contribute in any productive
way
> to the debate.
> 2.  You can argue with the facts all you want, but they are still facts.
> If ICANN was fully formed and funded, and then performed badly, you would
> have a good case for doing something different.

This misses the point - ICANN has not been fully formed (ie signed up the
cctlds) nor fully funded (ie regular contributions according to budget from
the cctlds) precisely because it has performed badly.

>But since it has not had
> either feature, in large part because of efforts by you and your
> compatriots  to try to force down the rest of the world's throats your
view
> of ICANN as world government, then there is hardly a case for ICANN having
> failed since it has never really ever been fully formed and operational.

This is clearly not directed at the cctlds. The relationship there might be
characterised as the ICANN staff trying to stuff their view of the g-tld
contracts and the un-adopted GAC principles down our throats, and extracting
revenues to fund g-tld policy development, but I'd rather close on a
constructive comment -the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the
ICANN project since its inception, and are working on preparing a combined
cctld position on ICANN reform, once the regional associations have
completed regional discussions. We are devoting a half day of our two day
session at Bucharest on ICANN reform, and have invited other major players
to attend, and contribute their perspectives. I look forward to it.

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association

--
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