[governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce Department/GAC chair intervention

[Milton Mueller]

Edward:
I completely agree with you. There are deep flaws in ICANN's TLD
processes. Lee McKnight and I proposed reforms that would make them
neutral, regular and objective. Until now, ICANN was inching in that
direction. This event basically destroys any possibility of that kind of
reform, by politicizing everything, which will make it more arbitrary
than before. 

So you should support this statement. The relevant point for you is:
why was your request ignored and this one acted on so quickly, despite
not following any process? The simple answer is that this request was
backed by the US Government and other governments, and they are powerful
and you are not.

As for the independent review procedure it has been so ignored and
abused by ICANN - as you can attest more than anyone - that I thought it
best not to even mention it. It is a joke, everyone knows that.

At this moment it is difficult for people to focus on the specifics of
your objections regarding .travel, as substantive as they are. I can't
even get most people here to understand and acknowledge the significance
of the .xxx delay. 

If you want to strike at this system, support the statement. I'd be
open to modifications that take note of other requests for
reconsideration that were ignored, as a demonstration of the
arbitrariness of this action.

Or, even if you don't want to become a signatory, you should post a
story on ICANNWatch or CircleID drawing out the parallels and
differecnes in the two stories. It would add important info to this
debate.

>>> "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward at hasbrouck.org> 08/19/05 11:57 AM >>>
On 18 Aug 2005 at 16:15, "Milton Mueller" <Milton Mueller
<Mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

> GAC members, including the US government, had ample opportunity to
> express their views on the .xxx proposal during the transparent
> 18-month evaluation process. 

There were *limited* opportunities to express views on *some* aspects
of 
the proposals.  But the proces was not "transparent".  The issue in my

request for independent review (which ICANN has ignored) is whether the

TLD decision-making process was open and transprent to "the maximum
extent 
feasible".  The identities of the evaluators were kept secret.  They
met 
in closed meetings.  They based their recommendations on secret 
correspondence with the applicants.  ICANN's board made its decisions
in 
closed "meetings" by teleconference.  I list some of the documents and

records concerning this process which have *not* been made available
for 
community scrutiny and comment in my request at:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000553.html 

> To conclude, we urge the ICANN Board to abide by its prior decision
to
> delegate the .xxx domain to ICM Registry. We hope they will use the
delay
> to explain to those who have raised the objections how and why the
> delegation decision was made and why ICANN's governance model

Under ICANN's bylaws, the proper) forum for review of how TLD decisions

were made is the independent review process.  If this is the issue,
ICANN 
should refer my request to an independent review panel, or stay its 
decision while it conducts an open and transparent process of
developing 
consensus on independent review procedures (which it is required to
have 
in place, but so far as I can tell does not actually have).


----------------
Edward Hasbrouck
<edward at hasbrouck.org>
<http://hasbrouck.org>
+1-415-824-0214


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance