[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Draft EC POP statement

Questions as an addendum to Keith Gymer's points below:

Were the EC-POP group to make common cause with various of the
proponents of some kind of on-line voting resolution to ICANN
representation, on the basis of current involvement and interest, might
it not help to relieve:

(i) the logjam of trading names and reputations for the interim board
between the various interest groups
(ii) the fear of efficient NSI making a commercial success out of the
current confusion
(iii) the bogy of European extraterritorial extension under EC data
protection and anti-monopoly laws, which may or may not be real. For
example, it would be fascinating to see what happens to ccTLDs if .com
is adjudged to remain an illegal monopoly at some time in the future.
Governments are allowed to monopolise only?
(iv) and give the new entity some way of reaching out to those who feel
so concerned about its future direction and who want to grasp some of
that direction..

Noone has proposed a valid conflict resolution model, despite the
apparent efforts of the USG, the known efforts of IFWP/the Harvard
centre, etc. It is unfortunate, perhaps natural, that the existing IANA
largely fell back on its coterie of known supporters rather than absorb
the input from these groups to grow.

If the interim board is empowered to put the future permanent board to
some sort of approval by membership voting then many of the objections
to the constitution of the interim board/interim structure could be
attenuated. To take one example amongst many, the absence of any Latin
American or African board representation then becomes an agenda item to
be remedied in that future process, rather than a reason for delay now.

Although these points have been made elsewhere, particularly by Jim
Dixon, I raise them again, as I naively don't know why they have been
forgotten. They are not necessarily the views of the EC-POP
constituency, but the EC-POP might be stronger for taking them on board,
as the consensus around the fifth draft does not seem to be as advanced
as one might have thought.

Gymer, Keith wrote:

> As I indicated in my earlier posting, I think it would also be
> reasonable to
> ask that further details are provided on who nominated the listed IB
> members
> and which stakeholder constituencies supported these candidates.
> As you may know, at the Congressional hearing last week Sims and Burr
> were
> apparently quizzed over the lack of transparency of the selection
> process
> and the report I have had suggests that the Committee wasn't to
> impressed
> with the responses they gave.
> Whilst there are clearly candidates on the list that we would support,
> I
> suspect that most of them are unknown quantities as far as most people
> are
> concerned and it would be helpful to have sufficient background
> information
> on their nominating organisations and supporting groups so that we can
> be in
> a better position to assess whether the IB is not just regionally
> representative, but is also sectorally representative of the range of
> different stakeholder groups.  At the moment, I certainly don't feel
> we have
> enough information to judge this.
> Regards
> Keith
>  ----------
> >From: MURON Olivier BD/DINU
> >To: Ec-Pop
> >Cc: christopher.wilkinson@skynet.be
> >Subject: Draft EC POP statement
> >Date: 09 October 1998 19:38
> >
> >Hi EC-PoPers,
> >
> >Werner Staub and I prepared the following draft.
> >Could you react before Monday 6 PM so that we can meet the NTIA
> deadline,
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Regards,
> >
> >Olivier
> >
> >Olivier MURON
> >olivier.muron@francetelecom.fr
> >+33 (0)1 44 44 54 89
> >*******************************
> >
> >EC Panel of Participants: Statement of Support for ICANN Proposal
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >About the EC Panel of Participants (EC-PoP)
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > On July 7th 1998 the European Commission (EC) called for a European
> >
> > consultative meeting as preparation for the IFWP meetings, the
> > results of this meeting can be found at:
> > http://www.ispo.cec.be/eif/dns/conclusions.html
> >
> > One of the results from that meeting was the establishment of an EC
> >
> > Panel of Participants (PoP), a European group of stakeholder
> > representatives, to discussed a common position in the IFWP process
> >
> > and to advise the EC.
> >
> > The EC-PoP has responded to the IANA's third draft on September 9,
> > 1998, and to the NSI-IANA cooperative draft (fourth draft) on
> > September 17, 1998 (http://www.ispo.cec.be/eif/dns/ec-pop.html)
> >
> >
> >
> >Position on ICANN proposal:
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > The members of the EC Panel of Participants recognise the value
> > of IANA's efforts to build consensus on this matter. The EC-PoP is
> > pleased to acknowledge that significant progress has been made
> > since the fourth iteration of the draft and that most of the
> > issues identified by the EC-PoP have been addressed.
> >
> > The members the EC-PoP believe that the proposal submitted
> > by ICANN is a realistic basis for the launch of the new Corporation,
> >
> > provided that the Initial Board take action to correct the following
> >
> > shortcomings:
> >
> > - Improve safeguards against extra-territorial application of US law
> >
> >   and US public policies. The proposed Articles of Association
> >   and Bylaws provide insufficient protection against the possible
> >   overruling of international law or other countries' laws, social
> >   concepts and cultural values.
> >
> > - Ensure more balanced international representation. In the current
> >   draft, more than 50 percent of the members of the full final Board
> >
> >   could come from a single region such as North America or Europe.
> >   By the time the Bylaws are reviewed as per Article V, Section 4,
> >   Paragraph a, this threshold should be reduced to one third of
> >   the total number of board members.
> >
> >The EC-PoP would like to point out that delays in incorporating
> >the new IANA can create lasting imbalances with respect to
> >the needed international and competititive equilibrium.
> >Smooth implementation of ICANN and its supporting organisations
> >is key to preserving the stability of the Internet.
> >
> >


Mark Measday

Josmarian SA UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:
Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 measday@josmarian.ch/measday@ibm.net

L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy