At 09:58 PM 7/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Gene Marsh wrote:
>
>> At 02:13 PM 7/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> >Governments already have authority to look into ICANN's operations.
There is
>> >nothing about being a corporation that keeps off limits.
>>
>> Yes, Diane, but an organization in which we are being asked to trust and
>> invest our future may need its own processes which INVITE scrutiny. This
>> would be a policy, not a mandate based on the type of organization. The
>> subtle difference brings a more open approach and engenders a higher level
>> of trust.
>
>What do you have in mind, Gene? Exactly what would a government official do?
>Just watch? Make recommendations? Why a government official? Is that
because
>they are presumed to be representative of their nation? Which government
>official? The FCC? Congress? The European Commission?
>
Actually, we are probably pretty close to agreement. My problem is that
ICANN has not held their meetings in an open light. They have responded
that no corporation is held to having all their board meetings held
publicly. However, they represent a *new* monopoly of Internet
control/governance. Until they have established a level of trust and
respect most can find comfortable, I don't trust them.
Neither do most in this debate.
I'm not sure what the right model for *watching* ICANN is. I DO know I am
not confortable with status quo. I'm open to suggestion (although ICANN
may not be).
>IMHO, just opening the Board meetings would be sufficient. If any government
>official wants to attend, let 'em.
>
>> I see no such enlightened approach from ICANN to date.
>
>Well, there's that GAC, but there aren't many people on this list who are
enamored
>of it.
>
>Diane Cabell
>http://www.mama-tech.com
>Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
>Boston, MA
>
>
>
>
++++++++++
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
330-699-8106
