Dave Farber wrote:
There are many cultures represented on the Interim Board . Many come from cultures that do not engage in open board meetings nor have legal requirements for public meetings to be open. If the purpose of openness is to insure visibility of the process then my suggestion goes a long way to PROTECTING the community with recognition of the attitudes of many of the Board members.We [INEGroup] don't see that there are MANY cultures represented on the
Interim Board. I personally would say that this is a bit of an overstatement.
Your mileage seems to vary as I am sure others does as well. The only
sure way in which the stakeholders can be adequately protected has to
a great extent already been subverted or overted as there should have been
a membership organization in place as a first priority to keep the board
honest and in check. This was not done and has yet to be accomplished.
It also appears that there will be a membership that will not equitably
represent the stakeholders at large, but rather one that is likely to be
divisive through some rendition of a constituency model a la the poor
decision on the DNSO. Hence we are starting out with an ICANN that
is secretive, for what is now reveled as obvious reasons, and is
structurally, and from a process point of view, BROKEN.
Yes, it can be fixed, however this is not difficult to do as their are decisions thatThe Interim Board is interim, lets fix the real Board and patch the transient situation
the interim board have made a la Singapore that are NOT representative
of the stakeholder community as is part of the Requirements of the
White Paper. This being the case we are now seemingly dealing with a
Interim Board that seem to feel that they can act with relative impunity and
unilaterally as well as non-transparently. This is not a good scenario, and
shows lack of good leadership and violates the Presidents "No Harm" policy.
I don't totally agree that the ITU and WIPO are the only alternatives. In factI want ICANN to work as it was envisioned early by Jon and others. I see no viable alternative except ITU and WIPO or maybe the FCC etc. It is too late to throw it away unless you like the alternatives.
the NTIA in the White Paper mandated that WIPO do a study regarding the
DNS and Domain name issues with respect to Trademarks.
What is needed is a interim board that is fully responsible to
the
Stakeholders as the White Paper requires. Currently this does
not
appear to be the situation. There is not a "Bottom-up"
approach
in this malignant structure and process being orchestrated by
the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board, as well as with the less than
helpful Berkman Center to a great degree. It is the old familiar
political "Shell Game" that is afoot, as some recognized early
on and
now many are beginning to realize.
Regards,Dave
At 07:20 AM 3/13/99 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>Dave,
>
>>It seemed to me that this provides protection for all parties. When the new Board is elected one hopes (expects) they will hold open meetings and the observer need will go away.
>
>It is not clear what is being "protected" on the ICANN side.
>The function of the Interim Board was to get an open collaborative
>standards organization running, not set up a global governance
>regime. The secrecy only abets the latter proclivity.
>
>
>
>--tony
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
