<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font><br>
On Saturday 09 June 2012 11:18 AM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
Lee, <br>
<br>
My proposal is clear in not seeking any significant technical changes
in
the system, or perhaps even any change at all. So I dont know why this
engineering/ working code and
financial argument keeps on coming in when we are speaking of just the
oversight model, largely the role that US gov plays at the moment. I
would like to better understand this counter-argument. The US gov
contributes neither working code not any significant finances to the
present
model. So why should an alternative oversight model assemble their
technical and financial bid first for the changeover?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">And if indeed it is to be
insisted that the tech/
financial models have to demonstrated first, it is not an invitation to
go to the one international agency that has the money and some tech
resources to attempt this kind of a thing - the ITU. But that is not
acceptable either, right! One cant be putting completely un-doable
conditions
on the 'other party' and then say, see you are not able to do it and so
you dont deserve what you seek. </font><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net" type="cite"><br>
The Tunis Agenda is clear that enhanced cooperation issue excludes day
to day functioning of CIR/ tech management. In my proposal yesterday
I in fact suggested that we go even further and through an
international agreement sanctify the basic principles of the ICANN/
IETF/ RIR model, minus of course the oversight, which is then shifted
vide the same agreement.<br>
<br>
I think (1) technical operations, (2) CIR oversight, and (3) other
larger global public policies have to seen at three different levels,
admitting of different analysis and institutional responses. Some level
of connectedness between them cannot be denied, but seeing them
separately for building an appropriate enhanced cooperation model will
be useful. By my reading, Tunis agenda was able to see these three
levels separately, and perhaps also as requiring different
institutional responses/ solutions. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>