[ga] various comments

["Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>]

Let me try to collectively respond to the various posts dealing with my
previous posts.

1.  ICANN is a process, not a thing.  Its only purpose in life is to serve
as a facilitating mechanism for issues related to the DNS for which there
is no other available or preferable forum.  I understand that there are
people out there who don't like that idea, and wish it were not so, but
there are  also people out there that do like the concept, and so far, the
latter have been more influential than the former.

2.  ICANN's mission, simply put, is to provide a forum for discussion,
consensus building where possible, and decision-making on matters which are
either necessary or highly useful to the continued effective operation of
the DNS.  I understand that reasonable people can and do differ about the
parameters of that mission, and so it continues to be debated. Some people
think there is a broad consensus on this point, and others do not; in the
meantime, decisions will be made by those with the ability to make them,
exercising their best judgment as to the course of conduct that most
conforms with the first sentence of this paragraph.

3.  In response to Jefsey, the main accomplishment of ICANN  will always be
the continued stable operation of the DNS, for the benefit of all those
that rely on it.  If ICANN can provide the forum for discussion and debate,
and make decisions as felt necessary, with the result that (despite all the
forces to the contrary) the DNS continues to perform effectively, that will
validate its existence.  To date, this has been done while a competitive
registrar system and a SRS has been introduced; while seven new generic
TLDs have been introduced; while a global dispute resolution system has
been introduced where none existed before; and while there has been a
continuing forum (no matter how imperfect some feel it has accepted or
reflected their views) for debate and discussion about not only these
issues, but internationalized TLDs, the appropriate system of oversight for
ccTLDs, the proper role of the RIRs and root server operators in the global
coordination of the DNS and addressing system, and the appropriate
governance mechanisms for such a unique entity as ICANN.  In the future,
there will be more significant issues that raise their own policy problems
-- perhaps a larger number of new TLDs, IPv6, DNSsec, IDN deployment, etc.
So the challenge for ICANN now is to reform and regularize its structure
and processes so it can effectively serve as the policy development body it
is intended to be, but in a more effective and workmanlike way than has
characterized its first 3+ years.

4.  On the .org example, this is a really good illustration of the
different roles of the policy development bodies of ICANN and the Board.
The former are made up of representatives of specific private interests;
the latter is made up of people who are charged (and in joining the Board
agree to act accordingly) with representing the public interest as a whole.
There was lots of work put into this issue by volunteers, but in trying to
ensure that the appropriate poitical compromises were made between the
various interests represented, the working group lost sight of the #1 goal
of everything ICANN does -- the continued stable operation of the DNS.
There are 3 million registrants in .org, and their continued well-being --
their right to be certain that their registrations will continue to
effectively function under a new registry operator -- is and must be the
principal criteria of any redelegation.  Once that goal is ensured, then we
can think about other things, although it is hard for me to imagine that it
would ever be appropriate to charge registrants significantly more than
cost for the purpose of creating a fund to subsidize someone's idea of a
good cause.  What the Board said in Accra is:  "Continued stable operation
of .org is the primary decisional criteria for selecting a new registry
operator."  In doing so, the Board (whose responsibility to to act in the
best interests of the entire ICANN community, including in particular those
registrants that do not otherwise participate in ICANN but nevertheless are
affected by its actions) simply applied the ICANN mission parameters to
this particular issue.  You will notice that the RFP documents otherwise
reflect much of the recommended approach and language.

5.  Finally, some have written that my participation on the list at this
time is because ICANN is "panicked."  Of course, if we don't participate,
we are accused of not engaging.  Hard to win on this point, it appears.  In
any event, this will be my last post for a while, since the next 10 days or
so will be busy.  Look for some kind of posting of reform recommendations,
as the Board said in Accra would occur, on or about June 1.


Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========



--
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