<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
- To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:11:58 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Is this hearing being
webcast?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Berard<br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings<br>
From: "Smith, Bill" <<a
href="mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Thu, December 08, 2011 5:58 am<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>" <<a
href="mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Cc: Mike Roberts <<a
href="mailto:mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>, bc - GNSO
list<br>
<<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
I've always maintained that it is easy to tell when you have consensus, for any
reasonable definition of consensus. Given the continued disagreement,
discussion, and debate regarding new gTLDs, it doesn't appear that we have
consensus. If we did, I believe we'd see more head nodding and much less
talking. Even here in the BC, we have discussed and submitted suggestions for
"improvement" to the new system.<br>
<br>
That's not a consensus agreement but something more like what was described in
an earlier message that went something like this; if new gTLDs are a fait a
complit, it's better that we help eliminate the worst aspects and improve it as
best we can. That's fatalism, not consensus.<br>
<br>
While ICANN claims to be a bottoms-up, consensus-based, multi-stakeholder
organization, it has yet to navigate the difficult waters of actually become
the organization it professes to be. In terms of consensus, as far as I know a
simple majority in each of ICANN's constituencies would be sufficient to
declare consensus, by a strict definition, on any issue at the GNSO Council.
The vote would be unanimous.<br>
<br>
So if our definition of consensus is a simple majority of those voting, ICANN
is consensus-based. But if our definition is closer to unanimity, or lack of
sustained, substantial objection by more than an insignificant minority, we
don't have a consensus decision.<br>
<br>
I'd be hard-pressed to sit before Congress and declare that we have reached
consensus.<br>
<br>
On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:37 PM, "<a
href="mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>" <<a
href="mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> I disagree with your assessment of community support for the program.
There<br>
> was a supermajority vote which approved the new TLD principles,
including<br>
> support of the BC and IPC, because we believe that business users of the
DNS<br>
> would be better off with more domain name choices, more registration
service<br>
> providers, and IDN TLDs, . The ICANN Board was nearly unanimous in<br>
> approving the current implementation plan. The BC is still in favor of
new<br>
> TLDs, even if we have some reservations about some of the
implementation<br>
> details. There is broad community support for them, even if there also<br>
> remains some broad opposition from some business/IP groups who are
noisily<br>
> repeating some of the arguments that have been made by the BC and
others<br>
> repeatedly for years. <br>
> <br>
> So, I am not clear about what you would like the BC to say publicly at
this<br>
> point, perhaps you could circulate a draft?<br>
> <br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Mike<br>
> <br>
> Mike Rodenbaugh<br>
> RODENBAUGH LAW<br>
> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<br>
> <a href="http://rodenbaugh.com";>http://rodenbaugh.com</a> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>
[<a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of<br>
> Mike Roberts<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:38 PM<br>
> To: bc - GNSO list<br>
> Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Reading over today's testimony, one can't help but have the feeling
that<br>
> ICANN is digging itself deeper and deeper into a bunker position from
which<br>
> it may not recover.<br>
> <br>
> I'm reminded of the gigantic underground cistern located near the Blue<br>
> Mosque in Istanbul. Worth a trip if you haven't seen it.<br>
> <br>
> After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Goths and so on came down
the<br>
> peninsula and ravaged the city. So walls were built. Then sieges were
put<br>
> in place and folks ran out of water. So at great expense the cistern
was<br>
> dug and covered over. Then longer sieges, etc. The invaders
prevailed.<br>
> <br>
> The moral being that some ideas are so flawed that no amount of
building<br>
> walls thicker and cisterns deeper will carry the day.<br>
> <br>
> The Kurt Pritz testimony goes on for more than 15 pages trying to cover<br>
> every possible contingency of bad behavior connected to new TLDs. And<br>
> doesn't succeed.<br>
> <br>
> Even though the BC membership includes members with multiple
relationships<br>
> to ICANN, some of which are linked to proposed new TLDs, the core
rationale<br>
> for our constituency is to represent business users of the Domain Name<br>
> System. Setting aside IDNs, which have their own rationale, I haven't
seen<br>
> any enthusiasm for new TLDs among users, and most of us have been
opposed<br>
> but willing to work on the details with ICANN because that seemed
better<br>
> than letting it happen without any input from us. What we have gotten
for<br>
> our trouble is Kurt claiming in his testimony that there is broad
community<br>
> support for new TLDs. That has never been the case.<br>
> <br>
> The ever greater accretion of protective bureaucracy to the program has<br>
> produced a balance of costs and benefits - in the broad sense,
including<br>
> more than dollars and cents - that is seriously out of whack. It's
time<br>
> for us to acknowledge this, and say so publicly.<br>
> <br>
> - Mike<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|