<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Friday 08 June 2012 12:31 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">Parminder,<br>
<br>
If I may attempt to mediate yet again, I think we are indeed making
some progress on this thread.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Snip<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;"><br>
Next, the question you raise - well if the US NTIA plays a part in the
system, why can't we swap out US NTIA for XYZ UN or other MSH/and/or UN
process.<br>
<br>
And now we get to the poker analogy or unilateral disarmament scenario,
however one wishes to characterize it:<br>
<br>
WHEN there is a plausible UN or global scenario/mechanism on the table
to talk through how exactly an alternative would work, such that
USG/DOC/NTIA can get out of the engine room, THEN - there is something
to talk about.<br>
<br>
Until then, we are all just - bluffing - and the US/DOC/NTIA know this,
and won't engage since - there's nothing to talk about, given a process
that is working, and no credible alternative on the table.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Lee, <br>
<br>
Your mediation is welcome, and I also hope we are making progress. As
per your suggestion, I agree that bringing a clear model to the table
is necessary for making progress. For the start I suggest something
like the following, and hope that IGC can be the one which comes up
with a clear model and puts it on the table, after we have discussed
the relative merits and
disadvantages of different approaches well enough over here. <br>
<br>
We should give a clear call for internationalising oversight of CIR
management, whereby the
oversight function is shifted from US gov to an international body
constituted under an international treaty limited to addressing the
question of CIR oversight.<br>
<br>
The same treaty acknowledges and guarantees the basic
principles of ICANN model of CIR management (DNS plus IANA) and the
IETF model of technical standards development (as well if necessary the
RIR model etc). <br>
<br>
(Note: It is only by an express international agreement on these basic
principles and models respectively of CIR managements and tech
standards development that the danger, as expressed by many, of ITU or
some other body trying to replace the present decentralised and bottom
up
models by top down bureaucratic models, can be met effectively.
Otherwise, with nothing really expressly agreed to and documented at
the global level, there
will always be a threat that one thing or the other can be slipped into
global treaties, UN documents etc, and thus into the legitimate mandate
of some
bodies, maybe ITU, as many have been fearing about the forthcoming
Dubai ITU meeting. An express agreement on basic principles of these
models will give us the much needed stability, and remove the
atmosphere of fear and distrust that exists today.)<br>
<br>
The treaty should structure the oversight structure in manner that it
is impossible to do ad hoc interferences with CIR management, and the
due process of oversight with all the necessary safeguards should be
clearly laid out. A sufficiently high majority of the members of such a
body should have to agree to exercise any oversight function
(whereby, to allay some people's fears one may state that, it will be
difficult to do anything without, say, members from North America and
EU consenting). In default, ICANN's operational decisions can be
considered automatically authorised. (This may need more thought, and I
may be moving into slippery grounds here, but lets think out of the box
and come up with possible ways to break the present logjam.)<br>
<br>
As I had proposed earlier, we can suggest some kind of innovative
regional/ country based selection process for oversight body members,
who may have some connections/ acceptance etc of the governments but
also demonstrate clear and definitive support from a larger
constituency. (Details can be
worked out.) (I know some countries may try to rig this system in their
internal selections, but if the broad directions are laid out, a very
big majority will not. We will need to live with some levels of
imperfections as long as the overall configuration does work well
enough.) The total numbers of members should be manageable - less than
15-20, I would think. They should have sufficient techno-social
standing in their country/ region. <br>
<br>
ICANN then gets re-constituted as an international body under the
mentioned international agreement, and enters into an appropriate host
agreement with the US. .....<br>
<br>
Something on these lines, but it is completely open for comments and
discussion.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>