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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

And if you read the AoC ATRT interim report it appears that such lack of
accountable oversight or whatever you want to call it will continue,
unless we all get a little more involved in this review process - so
comment, comment, comment!


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board Resolution 2010.11.05.20
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, November 17, 2010 9:30 am
> To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Perhaps in the spirit of the AoC - "accountable oversight"
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:10 AM
> To: Antony Van Couvering
> Cc: Ron Andruff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board Resolution 2010.11.05.20
> 
> 
> I mean no lawful oversight. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 7:13 PM
> > To: Milton L Mueller
> > Cc: Ron Andruff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board Resolution 2010.11.05.20
> > 
> > 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
> > >
> > >