[governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options'

[Danny Younger]

Re:  "I consider both options valid, if one is opposed
to ICANN in its totality, they should oppose it.  but
if one believes that changes can be made and that
those changes could improve things for  
transparency, openness, multistakeholderism and for
internet users globally, then it makes sense to be
engaged in both CS IG and ICANN."

I am in regular communication with many that oppose
ICANN.  Just yesterday I received the following note:

"WRT the ICANN. After I left, I watched it for a
while. It confirmed my disgust with the ICANN and
their dishonest process. I'd rather work from the EU
end and bust their balls ;)  They are NEVER going to
give common user stakeholders recognition, face 
it. The ICANN needs to be destroyed and the ccTLDs are
the means with which to destroy it."

It is important to keep the lines of communication
open, and to recognize that there are those that will
never trust ICANN's purported commitment to
multistakeholderism.  As I tend to be an optimist, I
would like to think that change is always possible
over time and thus tend to support the "evolutionary"
proposals that have been submitted thus far.

But, I would like to make one observation with respect
to CS involvement in ICANN over the course of the last
few years.  If an issue under consideration has a
privacy component, then we can expect CS to be out in
full force.  On the other hand, if the subject matter
pertains to anything else, they always seem to be out
of the room...

I saw no CS involvement in the issue of domain name
portability (transfers), no CS involvement or
commentary with respect to the proposed .com registry
agreement, no CS involvement on the issue of the
registrar community's failure to safeguard
registration data via escrow, almost no CS involvement
in registry service change procedures, and limited CS
involvement in the matter of IDN guidelines (and those
are just some of the recent issues).  

If CS is arguing that they should get seats on half of
ICANN's Board, then I would think that a greater
degree of day-to-day involvement is warranted.  The
organization has enough armchair philosophers than can
comment on transparency, legitimacy, and
accountability... it needs a few more "workers".



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance