Re: [ga] Transfers and the Policy-Development Process

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all assembly members,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> It is clear that the implementation process cannot proceed in an
> unaccountable vaccuum.

  No kidding!  Of course it cannot.  However, this seem to be the method
that the now new ICANN reform process is to proceed along...

> You are correct in asserting that "Code is Law", that
> we should properly fear code that might be manipulated, and that we cannot
> blindly trust those that formulate such implementations without proper checks
> and balances...  even so, I do note that the FCC does manage to handle
> implementation concerns in a fairly straight-forward manner with processes
> that call for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a public comment period on the
> implementational details, etc. -- it can be done (even without the formal
> rigidity of the Administrative Procedures Act).

  Some Code is law, some is not.  Hence such a simplistic statement is
nor entirely accurate.  Policies that are not codified in law as a type of
"Code" is not law, but simply a set of policies...

  Indeed you are quite correct that the FCC does a pretty good job
in determining policy for that agency as a set of rules/policies that
have the full support of the "Executive Branch" of the US government.
This however is not a good comparison, and therefore not relevant to
ICANN and/or any policies that it may come up with.  That is the
DOC/NTIA that is required to enforce those policies.  However
with ICANN and the White Paper, ICANN has the first line of
oversight as well as determining those policies in the structure of
the White Paper and MoU.  Now, we all here know to one extent
or another that the ICANN BOD and staff have not honored those
two contractual obligations (White Paper and MoU)...  Hence
making many of their recommended policies of questionable legitimacy
or validity.

>
>
> And yes, there are proposals even for reform of the FCC itself... one such
> proposal which called for even greater transparency is noted at
> http://www.tiaonline.org/policy/fcc_reform.cfm
>
> My point is that the DNSO is chartered primarily to develop and recommend
> substantive policies.  That is its role.  The role of implementing policy
> advice belongs to another group, the Executive branch -- the President and
> his Staff.  But perhaps you are saying that we spend so much time on
> implementation concerns because we just don't trust the staff to act in our
> best interests... you may be right.  I guess our goal should be to establish
> ways to regulate the implementation process as well as to better define the
> policy-recommending process.

  Good points here Danny.  But lets not also forget or perhaps overlook
that the ICANN BOD is made up in part of members that do not belong
there, i.e. Boardsquatters, and the DNSO is shy several "Constituencies"
as well.  Hence perhaps that any current DNSO policies that have been
determined to this point in time are of, yet again, questionable legitimacy.

>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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