[governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review

Wed Dec 21 12:02:52 EST 2005

Hallo Wolfgang,

I agree wholeheartedly. In my view, ALAC should stick to regional 
representation but give up the idea of regional divisions. ALAC should 
also abandon organizational membership and rely on individual members. 
Accredited individual members should have the right to elect board 
members when they pass a certain threashold. How old are these ideas 
exactly? :-)
jeanette

Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> Michael I agree, the glass is (probably) not even half-full. What I said was that I noticed "some moves in the right direction" (in your calculation from 20 per cent to 40 per cent). So the move is small but again, it is in the right direction. Much more has to be delivered to reach 60 poer cent or 80 per cent. 
>  
> Jeanette questioned  that the Board takes the ALAC more seriously. It is correct, that the proposed and adopted changes of bylaws in Vancouver has been "a very small step". But in Mar del Plata even ALAC members rejected any discussion about changes of bylaws. Now a process of change has started. That is why I proposed that the ALAC should now prepare for Wellington a much more comprehensive reform, probably eliminating ALS. The reality has proved that the proposed mechanism does not work. The "New Bylaws" has been adopted on December, 15, 2002. The original plan was to substitute the Interim ALAC members by RALO elected members within one year. Now we have a situatuiion as we had with the "Boardsquatters" after ICANN´s Ykohoama meeting in July 2000. I remember the discussion around Hans Krajenbrink and Esther Dyson and there has been even Buttons in Marina del Rey in December 2000. The fact that nobody discusses this seriously shows also that the community does take this 
not seriously. It is obviously unimportant. Now three years have gone without any single RALO and nobody makes noise, not the ICANN Baord, not the ALAC, not other ICANN constituencies and no individual members. On the other hand, this should be proof enough for the fact, that the mechanism does not work and that the time is more than ripe to eliminate the concept by a change of the Bylaws. But the proposal should come from the "buttom" and not from the "top", that is from the Board. But as long as the ALAC doesn´t do anything, nothing will happen. Roberto announced in Mar del Plata (March 2005) , that they will undertake a last effort until the end of 2005. "Give as nine moths more" was his reply. Now we have nearly January 2006 and three months more until Wellington. ....
>  
> Best
>  
> wolfgang
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Gesendet: Mi 21.12.2005 16:25
> An: Carlos Afonso
> Cc: Governance Caucus; Avri Doria
> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, I think a similar optimism has been expressed many times in the past
> - and always foundered on events.
> 
> One could look at the same glass and say it's not even half-full:
> 
> * ICANN has no budget contstraints, and its 'tax' on registries keep
> rising
> * headcount keeps rising
> * ICANN still has no consistent policy for TLD introduction
> * There is no standard contract for registries
> * The UDRP continues to violate basic norms of due process.  The promised
> reveiw/reform is now 3+ years late
> * ICANN no longer faces as serious threat from WSIS in the short/medium
> term
> * The direct role of governments via GAC is bigger - this used to be seen
> as bad
> * The role -- direct, indirect, whatever -- of individuals and end-users
> remains approximately zero
> * ICANN meetings that actually take decisions are held in secret.
> Post-meeting information does not emerge on schedule and is quite scant
> 
> and so on.
> 
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> 
> 
>>Grande Wolf, extremely interesting synthesis of what is going on within
>>ICANN. And, why not say it, what is going on seems quite promising!
>>
>>[]s fraternos
>>
>>--c.a.
>>
>>Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dear list,
>>>
>>>I noticed seven interesting "moves" by ICANN during the recent Vancouver meeting:
>>>
>>>* the board listened carefully to the interventions with regard ot the .com agreement. It did not ignore the criitical remarks but started a new discussion process;
>>>* the board is seeking a new relationship with the GAC, listening to the advice in a new way, even risking litigation in the US with regard to .xxx case (it is another question wherther this is good or bad);
>>>* the board is listening to the voice of the ccTLDs. The adopted changes of the bylaws are substantial and reflect the positions of DENIC, NOMINET and others which so far, remained outside the CNSO;
>>>* the board wants to overcome the frustrating situation with the GNSO. It remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be another attempt to get justification for more of the same or whether it will have some consequences;
>>>* the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO over the IP address space and policy development in this area;
>>>* the board is trying to bring the IANA service in line with the needs of the registries which would go beyond the former approach  (reduce the waiting time and everything is okay) and include also QOS ;
>>>* the board takes ALAC more seriously. The adoption of the revised bylaw para with regard to the accreditation of ALS could be interpreted as a signal and it is now up to the ALAC to ask for more.
>>>
>>>There is also a long list of "missed opportunities" (so far), but ICANN obviously has recognized that after Tunis it is operating in a new environment. David Hendon said in Tunis, ICANN should read the "writings on the wall" and obviously there are literate people in the ICANN board. :-))))
>>>
>>>Best
>>>
>>>wolfgang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
>>>Gesendet: Di 20.12.2005 20:38
>>>An: Carlos Afonso
>>>Cc: Governance Caucus
>>>Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 20 dec 2005, at 14.29, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>if there is one change that i think is taking place in ICANN, is that
>>>protests are listened to, especially if they are public.
>>>
>>>a.
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>governance mailing list
>>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> --
> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance