Re: ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

ploki_xyz@hotmail.com (Fri 05/31/02 at 12:53 PM +0000):

> Incidentally, supposing that USG rebids the contract, what will be the GA 
> position? To hope that they get a better candidate, or to try to lay down 
> criteria for choice? And in this second case, how does this differ from 
> applying these criteria to reform ICANN?

these are excellent questions, roberto -- i'm glad you asked them.

if anyone would deem one candidate better than another, clearly there
are criteria at play; so it seems to me it might be good to start dis-
cussing what those criteria would be. moreover, tackling this question
per se is much preferable to yet another combination debate about the
issues at hand with a metadebate about the process by which those issues
are proposed or advanced.

how would developing criteria differ from applying them to a 'reformed'
ICANN? well, let me ask you what a 'reformed' ICANN would mean. my own
feeling is that for 'reformed' to have any practical meaning, at least
the following criteria would need to be applied:

     - it could not employ anyone currently employed by ICANN
     - its board could not include any member of ICANN's 'initial'
       or 'interim' board
     - it could not be legally represented by JDRP

however, if by some magic these reforms were applied, the resulting or-
ganization would be a very different creature indeed -- and, possibly, 
acceptable. 

of course, these aren't really 'reforms,' and they would strike most 
people unfamiliar with ICANN as punitive and personal -- hardly a good
basis for policy, even in the short term.

therefore, i would suggest that discussions of how to reform the unre-
formable is a waste of time. it would make much more sense to discuss 
criteria for a new organization -- and not least because we've already
had these conversations, in the form of the IFWP. looking back on those 
records with the benefit of subsequent experience seems like a good way 
to proceed. in particular, it opens up the possibility of articulating 
positive goals rather than dwelling on past negations.

cheers,
t
--
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