Re: [ga] Few preliminary comments on Lynn proposal
Don and all assembly members,
Many of us that have been involved in this process have known
that the ICANN BoD, most especially the "Initial" BoD and
original CEO, one Mike Roberts, never intended to adhere
to the White Paper or the MoU unless forced to do so.
This recent proposal from Joe Simms, and announced
"Officially" by Stuart Lynn is ample evidence of that
clearly. At least we know that the pretense's have been
dropped finally. I suppose that is some solace.
Don Brown wrote:
> I think you comprehend quite well. This proposal is rife with the
> smell of a power grab, although it is loosely disguised as a platform of "no
> status quo" and a change is needed because it simply hasn't worked yet
> or it hasn't worked the best it could.
> In the US we hear essentially the same thing, "change," ever four
> years, from those running for President, the House, Senate, etc. The
> big difference is that they do not have the power to elect themselves
> nor is their election controlled by a close knit group of their
> cronies. There is a set of checks and balances and the ultimate
> arbitrators of every election are those on the bottom - a very similar
> bottom-ups and broad based consensus, in the final analysis.
> The intent the ICANN proposal is obviously to migrate control further
> away from bottoms-up and broad based consensus, to even tighter
> control by a board which has the right to essentially elect itself. No
> one could possibly bend things to call that type of process fair,
> unbiased and even-handed -- at least, not with a straight face, for
> those with just an ounce of integrity and pride.
> It is said that the most efficient form of government is a
> dictatorship. If that is true, then who could it be that most favors
> efficiency over substance and so-called distractions? The US
> Presidential hopefuls handle substance and distractions both before
> and after their elections. Why should the governance of ICANN be any
> different and why should any of us surrender the Internet to an ICANN
> In Texas we say "that dog won't hunt!"
> Monday, February 25, 2002, 9:42:21 AM, Alexander Svensson <email@example.com> wrote:
> AS> Dear all,
> AS> my comments on the Lynn proposal are very preliminary,
> AS> since I still have lots of questions about it and
> AS> may not understand all parts of it fully.
> AS> At http://www.icannchannel.de/lynn-proposal.pdf (43 kB)
> AS> I have a chart showing the new ICANN Board structure
> AS> (again: I'm not sure if everything is correct and
> AS> would appreciate feedback!).
> AS> Frankly, the Board seems to elect itself according
> AS> to this proposal:
> AS> -- The CEO on the Board is elected by the Board.
> AS> -- The 10 "At Large" Trustees are confirmed by the
> AS> Board. (However, since 5 are governmental
> AS> delegates, the de facto veto power may be
> AS> diminished.)
> AS> -- 5 of the 10 "At Large" Trustees are nominated
> AS> by the Nominating Committee which consists of
> AS> a Chair (appointed by the CEO -- see above),
> AS> 5 members of the Board and 3 members appointed
> AS> by the Board.
> AS> -- The Nominating Committee (see above) appoints
> AS> 3 members of the Address+Numbering PC Steering
> AS> Group, 5 members of the Generic TLD Names PC
> AS> Steering Group, 4 members of the Geographic
> AS> TLD Names PC Steering Group and 3 members of
> AS> the Technical Advisory Committee.
> AS> The Chairs of these policy councils and the
> AS> Technical Advisory Committee are ex officio
> AS> members of the Board.
> AS> The "Steering Groups" are the equivalent to the current
> AS> "Councils", but they have their own staff and access to
> AS> ICANN resources. The interest groups formerly called
> AS> "Constituencies" are now "Forums".
> AS> How do non-commercial and individual users make sure their voice
> AS> is heard? Let's assume there is a Non-Commercial Forum (or
> AS> even more than one) and an Individual Domain Holder or User Forum.
> AS> (We don't know what the "well-defined minimal criteria for
> AS> recognition of new self-organized Forums" would be.) These
> AS> Forums could succeed in getting a topic they deem important on the
> AS> agenda of e.g. the Generic TLD Names Policy Council Steering
> AS> Group. They could succeed in agreeing with the other members
> AS> of the Steering Group to write a policy recommendation for the
> AS> Board of Trustees. However, the Board of Trustees (just like
> AS> the current Board of Directors) would be free to ignore any and
> AS> all advice ("strong weight based on its persuasive merits, but
> AS> not presumptive validity"). To have an influence on the ICANN
> AS> process, having a seat on the Board and/or the new Nominating
> AS> Committee seem to be good places.
> AS> Any comments?
> AS> Best regards,
> AS> /// Alexander
> AS> --
> AS> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> AS> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> AS> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> AS> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
> firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html