[ga] Is this all just a cunning plan?
I may be overly cynical and may have spent too many years in politics
but few other people have suggested this so I might as well.
My impression of the Lynn plan is that it may in fact be merely a red
herring. It is one of the oldest political tricks in the world to
propose something so extreme and controversial that when you finally
withdraw it the masses are so happy they didn't get Proposal A they
don't complain so much about Proposal B.
Lets face it up until a few days ago the debate was mainly on 6 vs 9
at large board spots and the size of the fee. Now the debate has been
shifted to should there be any at large at all and I will not be
surprised if in six months we learn "Okay you do get to have an at
large with six members" - you should be grateful for small mercies.
It will be fascinating to observe what happens to the original 4 board
members who terms expire this year when no replacements can probably
now be elected on in time.
In another post I plan to examine the pros and cons of the Lynn
proposal in detail but for now I am sceptical that it is a plan
proposed with any real intent to have it succeed.
One of the main reasons I am thinking this is because effectively the
Lynn proposal would make ICANN a variant of a UN quango. Getting
governments to agree on this sort of thing (and I mean actual Govts
not the minor bureaucrats who often attend GAC) is something which
takes years not months. The proposal would beyond any doubt attract
massive congressional scrutiny, almost universal opposition from media
and NGOs let alone individuals so unless Lynn is very very naive I
suspect he knows the proposal is not a realistic option. Hence I
suspect it is an attempt to move the debate parameters.
Am I the only one this suspicious?
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