Kerry and all,
You ask some very good questions here and offer some potentially
reasonable insight as well. However there are some issues that are
still left dangling to which the Commerce Commission has stated
and submitted questions on that have a direct impact on this
now terribly skewed ICANN process that must be reviewed and
potentially corrected before adequate movement in a forward
direction can assume on a reasonable basis...
(See my and [INEGroup's] comments of those below yours)
Kerry Miller wrote:
>
>
> > My hope is that you not get all hung up in the "who knew what and
> > when did they know it" story of how the interim Board was selected.
> > The selection was at best messy and chaotic. No question. So it
> > is with the formation of most new organizations.
> >
> Just one little thing might be interesting: Article XII, from
> Magaziner's proposal on through a number of iterations and
> alternatives, included a condition (that the Bylaws would not be
> amended until June 99), which disappeared at the last minute.
> There are doubtless good reasons for its having been dropped; my
> question is, Can any member of the interim board tell you what
> those reasons were, or who pulled the plug? Is there any record of
> the discussion?
Yes there is record of some discussion, but very few from Interim
Board members other than Esther Dyson and fewer still from Joe
Simms and Mike Roberts. The answer to why the "Plug" was pulled
was frequently ask, but again like many other questions put to the
ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board, it remains unanswered.
>
>
> > Instead --
> >
> > - - Focus on the ICANN bylaws and the method for structuring the
> > ICANN board **going forward**
> >
> In this light, I would ask which Article they consider most in need
> of amendment, and how they would proceed. Beyond the various
> details of the 'day-to-day' processing of recommendations from the
> SOs, this will be the strongest test of organizational quality once
> the *public at-large membership is actively involved.
Agreed. However it should be pointed out that the ICANN (Initial?)
Interim Board has done little with their "Outreach" program to
garner public activity in this process. It seem fairly obvious
to many as to why sense the March Singapore fiasco.
>
>
> Specifically, in the hypothetical case that such consideration was
> in the air, does the interim board feel that (a) it should be mooted in
> order for AL board candidates to use it in their campaigns for
> selection in September, or (b) would they prefer that half of the first
> Selected Board be found on the basis of other issues, and then let
> them take it back to their constituency?
The problem with this question Kerry, with all due respect, is the in
and at the March Singapore meeting the "Constituency" determination
from the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board was not a consensus decision,
contrary to their claim that it was. This was pointed out by many in
reports
from that March Singapore meeting. Hence the last part of your question
is not really possible to answer.
>
>
> More broadly, does the board see it as their role to produce a slate
> of issues for the AL member selection procedure?
As slate of issues by which candidates should be selected upon?
Is this your question to the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board? Why not
let the candidates select their own issues for their own platform?
>
>
> ========
> An earlier post on this thread:
>
> > However, there is a significant group of players that
> > seems to include IBM, that believes ICANN's flow-down
> > contract arrangements are the ideal means for applying
> > regulations, norms, and infrastructure taxes to those
> > using the Internet on a uniform global scale.
> >
> ...
>
> > The underlying mechanism is the GAC - which both decides
> > the applicable law and normative arrangements for gTLDs
> > and IP addresses, but also gets the governments to apply
> > the same law and norms to their "sovereign" ccTLDs.
> >
> > It's a seductive way to bring about a global Internet
> > legal regime that many of these players believe necessary
> > for E-Commerce and consumer protection.
> >
> Is there more than merely a conceptual parallel to the MAI
> deliberations? When the whistle was blown on the OECD,
> negotiations moved to various 'distributed' fora; the WTO, APEC,
> and the EC-US trade platform whose name escapes me would
> never think of 'setting policy' for each other, but just somehow, they
> will all proceed smoothly to the same kinds of treaty arrangements.
> Of course there are no legal grounds for objection because they
> havent been signed yet by national govt's -- but its easy to imagine
> that a case in any one trade area (or TLD) will then be defended on
> the grounds that 'competitiveness' with the other areas requires it.
> 'Veni, divi, vici'....
>
> kerry
>
> kerry
Regards,
--
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
