[governance] oversight

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Understood. From the current deadlock, it appears that any other country
other than US will not be accepted.

That is also why I am suggestion we ensure "host country agreement" or a
better term, is done right to get results.Fix it within ICANN or create a
mechanism to make it more "independent and international". How- this is what
I think we need to focus on and see what would work within the current US
administration.

As for the last point, not sure I agree it is totally useless. To get them
to agree to principles and a predetermined method and process to reach the
final goal, may be more achievable than having all the answers now.

On the other hand, to take your point that it is useless will be also saying
that WSIS is a waste of time. Possibly, just as the 1996-98 open consultaion
process initiated by the USG that did not lead to the final creation of
ICANN, was indeed a waste of time. That is a different discussion
altogether. Then it would be finding a forum that US can agree to, and have
discussions within.

If we are looking to do something at WSIS_ then let's do our homework, use
terms that mean something to the USG and determine a process that will
realistically work.

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:49 PM
To: Laina Raveendran Greene
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] oversight

Hello, Laina,

On 10/17/05, Laina Raveendran Greene <laina at getit.org> wrote:
> at whether there
> are other countries that may make it easier to do this e.g. in 
> Switzerland, and suggest a timeframe to get ICANN moved over- 
> recognising this is a process which will take time- i.e keeping status 
> quo until details are worked out.

Do you honestly think ICANN would go for this?

I believe this is a non-starter.  I think talking about this would be a
waste of cycles.

> I think this is an important factor to keep inmind instead of just 
> saying let's have a host country agreement.
>

This is probably not something the US would agree to either.  I might be
wrong, but in the current polarised environment, I don't think so.

> Alternatively, as I suggested before, we can agree to principles first 
> and set deadlines time wise to ensure things happen and agree on the 
> process on input to make this happen. This is where we can then make a
concrete "text"
> as Jeanette and Adam are pushing us to do.

and we'd be wasting our time IMO.

--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

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