Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for your review

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Antony

On Aug 26, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> Bill, I have to disagree with you. 
> 
> I don't believe it is unrealistic to expect ICANN to move just a little 
> faster when the rest of the Internet is moving at lightning speed.  ICANN 
> processes should be judged not by what is comfortable internally, but about 
> what's necessary to make it relevant vis-a-vis the rest of the Internet.  In 
> the two years since new gTLDs were supposed to launch, Facebook has added 300 
> million users -- more than all domain names in gTLDs and ccTLDs combined. One 
> of the characteristics of the desired outcome, for me, is that it isn't 
> irrelevant because it occurs too far down the road.  If we want the public 
> Internet to succeed, we have to be at least as useful and responsive as some 
> of the private ones springing up.  Don't forget, there's nothing 
> irreplaceable about the DNS addressing system, which needs to stay relevant 
> and engaged. 

Hard to argue with these points as stated
> 
> The process proposed is only experimental because we have some real-world 
> considerations, namely an impetus to get new gTLDs done. In the past, this 
> might have been handled by a lengthy process that would culminate in the GAC 
> considering the progress of it 3 times a year when they show up at ICANN 
> meetings.   We're trying to get the GAC involved at an earlier stage (as per 
> their request) to facilitate more rapid policy development.  

It's also experimental with regard to the procedural elements, the level of 
collaboration required across groups with varying preferences and experiences 
of mutual interaction, and some asymmetric reconsiderations and fluid positions 
within some of those groupings.  A game theorist trying to map this one out 
would probably end up committing hari kari.  

> In my view, it doesn't make sense to take an experiment that is designed to 
> speed things up and say that it should be taken at a slow pace because it's 
> an experiment. 

If you thought this is designed to speed things up then I guess we just view 
things differently.  I saw this an opportunity to be responsive to GAC and 
their evolving rethinking, and in that context to raise anew the concerns that 
led a notable chunk of the community, ALAC and NCUC, to oppose MAPO in the 
first place.

Who knows, maybe despite all the parameters we'll have everything settled in 2 
1/2 weeks.  But I don't see the problem in acknowledging the possibility that 
we may not.

Cheers,

Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:04 AM, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> On Aug 25, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> In which case, and if others agree with this position, we should declare in 
>>> the ToR that it is planned to end with the Sept 13 report.  My issue was 
>>> that the question was left dangling.  So it was not a question of it 
>>> running over, but rather a question of not stating what the intention was 
>>> for post Sept 13. Though, it seemed to me, the original intent of the ToR 
>>> was that it not end on Sept 13 - hence the call for a preliminary report.
>>> 
>>> There are good reasons to say Sept 13 and it is over.  And I think there 
>>> are good reasons to say Sept 13 is preliminary (whether we call it that or 
>>> not) and that we expect to continue. And I think there is a good reason to 
>>> say that after Sept 13, the group will review  and decide what comes next.
>> 
>> The latter two points resonate with me.  I think it's unrealistic to try to 
>> tightly bound to a short timeline a somewhat experimental process on a 
>> divisive issue involving multiple groups with their own dynamics, some of 
>> which require more time than others.  I think we need to have whatever 
>> dialogues are needed to move toward great mutual understanding and adapt the 
>> process to the desired outcome.  If "preliminary" bothers people ok but I 
>> would support Avri's proposed sentence.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************