___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
A reply to each of your two points:
1. I see no reason why either of the things you worry about is not
reversible. Certainly, any fee could be changed, and any dispute
resolution system could be altered, by a future board. The only thing you
mention that might not be reversible is the establishment of a mechanism
for the election of nine Board members by an At Large membership; if done
badly, and the result is capture by an economic or philosophical (or for
that matter religious or just mischeivous) minority, do you suppose that
the Board members so elected will cooperate in fixing the system so as to
prevent such results in the future? And what would be the consequences in
the meantime? If you are concerned to get this right, and to ensure that
this transition from government control to private sector management
actually works, then this part of the process needs to be done carefully,
for it probably is not reversible by anything other than a governmental
takeover -- which is, after all, what we are trying to avoid. A diverse
Membership Advisory Committee spent several months studying this issue very
closely, and came up with its best suggestions on how the At Large
Directors should be elected; those recommendations are now being evaluated
to see how they can be implemented, and more action will take place before
and at Santiago. Thus, if you are serious about this issue, it is
irresponsible to assert that it is not being given both the attention and
the care that it obviously deserves. It is my impression that the Board is
willing to accept criticism for a lot of things, and recognizes that in
this environment it is inevitable and unavoidable, but it does not want to
be remembered as the Board that, in response to that criticism, took
actions that, instead of contributing to progress, in fact were fatal to
the effort. The mechanics of the membership issue are probably the
toughest problem the Board has faced, and nonetheless, it is highly likely
there will be a membership process in place less than nine months after the
Board began work. It seems to me, given the other organizational midwiving
it had to do (the SOs) and the steps toward opening up com, net and org
registration that were required by the timetable set by the DOC, that this
is very fast movement, not the opposite.
2. It seemed to me that a little sarcasm was an appropriate response to
Jay's continual invocation of the Constitutional Convention and other icons
of democracy, leavened with his usual creation of "facts" out of thin air.
For some reason, some of the participants in this debate have no sense of
humor -- perhaps because they honestly believe that they are watching some
nefarious plot by some collection of evil entities to take over the world.
For those who really do think that, nothing I say will have any effect at
all, and so it is not useful to try to adjust for their ears. For the rest
-- and I assume, Karl, that this includes you -- lighten up! To see this
more as red-baiting (which is probably not too harmful now in any event)
than satire is taking this way too seriously -- and incorrectly. The
issues are not personalities or even particular people; they are (1)
whether the White Paper goals are desirable (I think they are, some
obviously don't) and (2) are we making progress toward them (I think we
are, some don't).
Karl Auerbach wrote:
Two points:
1. Whether one belives in the "initial"/"interim" distinction or not,
one does have to admit that the current board is moving fast.
Indeed, at the rate the board is moving, there could soon be a $1 tax
on domain names and the imposition of a supra-national ICANN-imposed
de-facto law of trademark-vs-domain names.
And yet ICANN has not yet created a general membership or permitted
non-commercial and individual interests to participate as full-fledged
voices in any part of ICANN or its Supporting Organizations.
All of these substantive, and largely irreversible decision could
well be in place before there are any board members who have obtained
their seats by elective processes.
So let's just dispense with the notion of "initial" and "interim" and
recognize
the clear fact that the unelected board now in place is making
permanent, substantive
regulatory decisions that will color and transform the Internet for
years to come.
Yet while that board is rushing to make those decisions, that board has
rejected the timely participation in those decisions by non-commercial
or individual interests.
2. You wrote the following words:
> ... not is a traitor to democracy and the American way (as defined by
> Fenello/BWG/IRSC)?
The BWG is not now defining, nor has it ever defined "democracy and the
American way".
I strongly resent the Mcarthy-era tactics that are being used to
smear those who have reservations about ICANN's behaviour and
its actions.
--karl--
