Re: [ga] The Real World

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

Marilyn, what about the theory that standard setting is (a) a potentially
competitive field, and ICANN would benefit from a little more competition,
and (b) it is unusual for a standards organization to openly declare that it
is against being bound by consensus, and (c), and it is really unusual for a
body that wants to *govern* to openly declare it should have a self
selecting board?   How do you explain these things to your friends?
Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>; "ga@DNSO.org" <ga@dnso.org>;
"Names council (E-mail)" <council@dnso.org>; "Business Constituency
Secretariat (E-mail)" <secretariat@bizconst.org>; "Alejandro Pisanty
(E-mail)" <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:51 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] The Real World


Dear all


As is well known, I am one of the representatives of the business
constituency,  I also work
within a company who is a major stakeholder in the Internet, wearing the hat
of an ISP,
a business user, a web hoster, a famous ;' and well known brand holder, and
acting as an
intermediary for several thousand businesses who have build web sites on the
Internet.

This post is as an individual:  BUT, I am the rapporteur in the BC on this
issue and I believe that
business users are fully committed to the Evolution and Reform Process which
ICANN announced.

Did we agree with all the initial solutions proposed?    No.
Did we agree with the list of issues to be addressed.Yes, largely.
Are we willing and committed to evolution?  YES.
Are we committed to ICANN's success? YES.

It is easy to throw stones. Better, harder, and more important to work to be
part of a
process to ensure private sector  leadership in the issues and
responsibilities ICANN manages.

I believe that you could say that the business users have taken sides as
well. That is the side of
evolving, improving and stabilizing ICANN.

Recently,  a multi lateral organization has raised its hand and said
something like: what about me?
I can do it better.Or cheaper. Or more like governments like it...  I have
seen many postings from
industry sectors who object to any efforts by governments or multi lateral
organizations to encroach
into the Internet via attempting to assume some of ICANN's functions.

Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to evolve ICANN and
welcome the support of governments [or multilateral organizations/treaty
organizations]
to private sector leadership.  We urge governments to work to support ICANN;
to participate
in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities. NOT to compete, and not to
seek to
take on functions which belong to ICANN.

On Evolution and Reform:

Will this be easy? No
Will it continue to be a bit noisy? Yes.
It is perfect? No....
Will everyone be satisfied?Not likely.
Is it worth it? Yes

Regards,

Marilyn Cade
Posting as an individual business constituency member and elected
representative, on my own personal views

-----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 8:15 PM
To: ga@DNSO.org
Subject: [ga] The Real World


The following should be of more than passing interest:

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) was set up in 1998 to oversee several important
functions that keep the Internet running. Ever since, it has been
 criticized for lack of accountability and openness.  In February,
 its current President, M Stuart Lynn, issued a manifesto
claiming that ICANN was seriously broken and proposing a
complete reform.  Although many concede that ICANN has
failed, few agree with Lynn's specific proposals, which
essentially call for a rebuilt organization with three to five
times the budget, more than 50 percent additional staff
and greater power.  Critics argue that this plan will create
a single point of failure, the very thing the Internet's design
sought to avoid.

The upshot has been to reopen the intense debates that
preceded ICANN's formation. Even former pacifists,
including Peter G. Neumann, who moderates the online
bulletin board RISKS Forum, and Lauren Weinstein of
People for Internet Responsibility, are taking sides.  They
say that an immediate handover to a less political, more
strictly technical organization, such as the Internet
Architecture Board, is necessary to avoid a meltdown."

"Need to Know: ICANN CAN'T," Scientific American,
June 2002, p. 21.

Bill Lovell




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