ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[alac] Re: [governance] Response to Izumi's comments

  • To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, <aizu@xxxxxxx>, <governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [alac] Re: [governance] Response to Izumi's comments
  • From: Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:20:48 -0400

At 02:16 19-08-05 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
here are my responses to your points. Please forward to the ALAC list.

Milton, Izumi,
it seems this discussion leads nowhere. It will be good to try to first clear things among yourselves, and then come to the list. As someone pointed out, not everyone can read tens of messages every day here.

Having said that, I need to reaffirm some things:

>Besides, while GAC has more authority in
>that they could formally request ICANN Board
>to explain in case the Board
>does not follow GAC advice, ALAC has no such authority.

Relative to UN/IGO models, where civil society has NO parity with
governments, this is a small, unimportant difference.

Milton, you keep to make such small, "unimportant" differences. However, when you put them all together, they form one big, important difference.

>I do not support treating the GAC chair and DOC interventions as one
>combination. To me, they are of separate nature.

That is a position that cannot be squared with the facts. They were
obviously coordinated. This is a substantive disagreement, but it is not
very important.

Again - you name a blame on someone, who is not even a member of this list, an "unimportant" thing... But on the other hand you asume as facts something that's "obvious". Ask anyone who believes in God if God exists, and he or she will tell you "But it's obvious". When saying that something is "obvious", that may be obvious to you only, as a true believer in the world conspiracy.

The language could treat them separately.

Could, but it didn't. That's a small detail, but important one.

>Again, I do not agree. They expressed their legitimate concerns
>and asked to take more time (delay the decision), but not to reverse
>it, at least explicitly. I do not believe that this will directly lead to a
>radical change of government position at ICANN per se.

A major difference between us. I think the statement shows a much
clearer grasp of the significance of this intervention than you do.
Izumi, what if the TLD decision is reversed? What will you say then?
Who will be seen as the cause of that decision, ICANN's Board or the US
Commerce Department? ICANN's Board or US + other protesting governments?
Won't all future TLD applicants then begin to lobby governments, first?

Lobby them for what? Give more time for discussions?

outside ICANN. The Family Research Council has zero participation in
ICANN, but it has had more infliuence in this area than ALAC and NCUC

Is this a real argument? Did ALAC and NCUC requested from ICANN more time for this discussion? Were they turned down??

>>We believe that Board's willingness to entertain this last-minute
>>intervention, while no doubt intended to be an act of accommodation
>>flexibility, could damage the fairness, credibility and stability of

>>ICANN's processes if it is taken to be a precedent for the future.
>Judging from the facts so far, I do not support this assumption. And I

>like flexibility.

I hope your employers and clients don't tell you that next time they
don't give you the money they promised.

Again, just words. ICM said they would happily respond to all questions. So, they accepted the delay, but Milton didn't. Who has better understanding of their interests, and what would be, in your words, the obvious conclusion?

>I agree that most GAC members neglected until the last minute
>about this .xxx issue. Yet, as GAC operates in their "consensus"
>mode, I also notice their difficulty in acting in unison on issues of diverse
>positions and opinions, thus individual governments are, like any other
>individual constituency, free to express their own interventions at any
>given opportunity.

I find it hard to understand why you are so apologetic for gross
negligence. It is not just that GAC failed to agree about .xxx, it
failed two times to even LISTEN to .xxx presentations to find out what
it was about. That is inexcusable!

Why not? Why do you judge the way GAC works? It's not the NCUC, it's the GAC; they can decide and excuse themselves from whatever they wish. Same with the other constituencies.

>The Board can, if they so choose,
>just ignore them if they think it is the right way, or they can listen to
>this last-minute request if that makes more sense. I don't see much
>procedural problem.

Fundamental disagreement again. How much independence does the Board
really have now?

What's your point? Is the CS statement dealing with that? No.

>My understanding of the Board resolution on this is that they
>instructed the staff to enter negotiation with the registry for terms
>and conditions, but that does not mean that they approved the result
>of the negotiation. Depending on the outcome of the negotiation, the
>Board is free to judge yes or no.

That was true before the US Commerce Department intervention. Is it not
true now, because negotiations have been halted.

Actually, ICM has said, "please do not take decision, we wish to address all questions which may emerge in the meantime".

As a member of the IG group here, I support Izumi.

Sincerely, Veni Markovski

The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of
the Internet Society - Bulgaria (http://www.isoc.bg),
or any other organizations, associated with or related
to the author.

This note is not legal advice.
If it was, it would come with an invoice.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy