Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board Resolution 2010.11.05.20

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can hardly agree that ICANN has no government oversight.  It has rather too 
much IMO. 

Sent from my handheld.   

On Nov 16, 2010, at 12:22, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> about ICANN's adhesion contract.  JJ and team have developed an AGB that
>> solely serves the interests of ICANN by off-loading any and all
>> liability and responsibility to applicants alone.
>> 
> 
> A rare event: I agree heartily with Mr Andruff.
> 
> I'd also like to point out to Roberto that while his comments are sensible 
> enough in their own right (if a market regulator is needed and there is no 
> consensus among the interest groups involved, some decision has to be made by 
> the board by default) - we also need to acknowledge the fact that this is not 
> the model ICANN was supposed to be based on. And Palage's quotation of Dyson 
> in 1999 just clinches that argument in a beautiful way. (It's not the only 
> quotation from Dyson that looks pretty foolish in retrospect, but that's off 
> topic for sure). 
> 
> Now, as liability is dumped on registry applicants due to ICANN's corporate 
> "risk mitigation" strategy, and staff wants to outsource the MAPO censorship 
> of domain names for similar reasons, we begin to get a better idea of what 
> kind of a beast was created in 1998 and what it means for the internet. A 
> private corp with no membership, no government oversight, no global 
> democratic legislature making laws to guide it, making regulatory decisions 
> based in no small part on its own organizational self-interest. If you 
> haven't read this yet, you might want to take a look: 
> http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/ICANNInc.pdf 
> 
> --MM
> 
>