Re: [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope
On 2002-03-28 14:33:13 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>The Names Council felt that the greatest danger of mission creep
>lay in the areas of security, consumer protection and the creation
>of infrastructure for at-large membership.
I object against mixing draft conclusions which specifically address
ICANN's mission with remarks on one particular model for public
participation with ICANN.
The risks and benefits of an at large membership can (and should) be
discussed and addressed when the names council considers mechanisms
for the selection of board members, and for structuring public
input. In such a discussion (to which I'm looking forward), an
at-large membership should be considered together with alternative
options, such as the Lynn proposal's idea of governmental
involvement with the nomination of board members (which would, most
likely, also have a large impact on possible mission creep).
Please remove the words "and the creation of infrastructure for
at-large membership" from the draft conclusions.
>Recommendation 2. ICANN's mission should not be extended beyond
>that outlined in the note "What ICANN Does" .
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/