Kent,
You wrote:
> Ms Burr:
>
> I must protest this proposed teleconference (see below) with "ORSC
> folks". This is a matter some importance, and of wide interest to
> many people. Privileged, closed access for the ORSC is simply not
> fair to all these other interested parties, and is in fact completely
> at odds with the values that ORSC claims to hold.
>
I must say that I don't share your feelings.
I think that this will not be neither the first, nor the last teleconference
or meeting between USG and ORSC, and this does not shock me at all.
The problem will rather be: "How can ORSC complain about the supposed
closeness of some meetings, and accept the closeness of others", but this is
an "ethical" point, and does not involve at all Ms. Burr.
I trust ORSC.
I believe that they will do whatever is in their power to provide feedback
to the Internet Community about their conversation. If they can provide
transcripts in timely manner, they will do. This is not the point either.
OTOH, I would like to focus on the reason why Stef has started to raise the
issue to USG, because this is, from my point of view, where a fruitful
exchange of opinions can take place on these lists.
If I understand correctly the document
(http://www.nist.gov/admin/od/contract/9c1020.htm), USG is proceeding to a
next step towards recognition of ICANN and transfer of power to it, i.e. the
process that started with the signature of the MoU between US DoC and ICANN
(http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm).
Why is USG doing it, and why is Stef, or ORSC, objecting to it, is the
interesting subject of discussion, IMHO.
ORSC (and some other parts of the Internet stakeholders) are objecting to it
because ICANN is not sufficiently "open" (yet), and because some of the
original requests contained in the ORSC and BWG "alternative" proposals for
ICANN Bylaws have not been included in the final ICANN documents. They claim
that, as long as these points are not taken, and ICANN is not showing
further openness, USG shall not further progress in the delegation of powers
to ICANN.
(I personally disagree, in the sense that I believe that from the original
set of Bylaws ICANN went a long way - for instance, there was a time when
the key point seemed to be Membership, and this point is on its way to
resolution - but my personal opinion is irrelevant here)
USG, on the other hand, is proceeding because thay don't think that there's
sufficient reason to stop the process that they are committed to take
forward.
Why?
Because the Internet Community is represented by ORSC and BWG, but not at
all exclusively by them. I highly respect ORSC's positions, and I even agree
on some as a matter of principle, but I cannot pretend not to see the rest
of the world.
The rest of the world could not care less on whether ICANN's Board meetings
are RealAudio-ed or not. They care about a stable framework to develop
business.
And the current situation, in which IANA has disappeared (in terms of focal
point for Internet coordination), USG is claiming to be willing to get out
of the picture, and ICANN is not empowered yet, is a frightening picture.
Uncertainity, for business, is worse than bad news, because it does not
allow to take effective counter-actions.
And this leit-motiv I hear all over in the business community.
I've read yesterday a document that has been presented to the Tiphon
(Telephony over IP) Plenary meeting by a Corporation: they are terrified by
the "contentious and rancorous in the extreme" process, about the
uncertainity in which this new business has to develop, about the
"obstructionism and a general slowing of the process, not always resulting
in productive solutions or ones that are favorable to all stakeholders", and
are demanding a stable frame of reference.
I have been asked to participate in the meeting, but had to decline because
of an earlier committment with CEN (the European Standardization Council) on
an intervention on the same subject (at the same time, in a different place,
of course).
A third concurrent initiative is also ongoing at the European Parliament for
issues related to the enhancement of the European infrastructure, and again
the same song: lack of certitude.
And I am not talking about the concerns of the European Panel of
Participants, another group that participated very much in the discussions
about the Green Paper, White Paper, and ICANN Bylaws (but that has not been
taken in the same consideration as others because decided not to present
alternate Bylaws), or the European Commission itself.
These are just examples from my reality of everyday, mainly concentrated in
Europe, but with sufficient interactions with the rest of the world to let
me say that this is a general need worldwide.
Business is business everywhere, and the problems are the same everywhere.
And US Department of Commerce knows this much better than my humble self.
So. I guess that business interests, that are also Internet stakeholders,
don't make their voice heard on the IFWP or ORSC or DNSO lists, but they
exist, they are powerful, and they are important for the overall development
of the Internet and of our society.
And I find it perfectly reasonable that USG is listening to them, and going
forward with delegation to ICANN, in order to set up with the shortest
delays the stable frame of reference that the business world is waiting for
(in US and overseas), to continue developing growth and welfare.
Our role, as participants to the discussions in the mailing lists, is to
make ICANN "better", to insist on fair and open process, to enhance the
proposals on Membership, to make sure that the layman's point of view is
taken into account and not squeezed among the business giants.
Our role is not to stop the show.
Regards
Roberto
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
