[governance] oversight

[Lee McKnight]

Hi,

And why wouldn't USG want to get out of the MOU w ICANN biz asap? Seems an easy way to shield ICANN from criticism as being just a tool of USG. The last update on the MOU had a similar long to do list which it was unclear ICANN could pull off, but it did at least to ntia's satisfaction. Now ICANN (and NTIA) will have even more incentive to do so. On the ccTLD side, it's not so much the USG as the rest of the world which would provoke an extension, ie if other govs aren't happy with ICANN's progress there then it's hard for USG to leave the room.

Likewise re ICANN & Verisign, this is more tidying up in advance of the end of the MOU.

So back to Carlos' point on facts on the ground, a non-profit organization named ICANN will be sitting where ICANN sits next year. Don't think that should be a surprise to anyone. Well maybe they'll change the name, who knows : )

Oh, and Congress thinks governments should not muck up the root. That's the EU and Argentinean position among others too, right? And CS also.

There's plenty of other areas for international political oversight, so not sure exactly why all the angst over the MOU maybe being extended, shouldn't we be happy that USG is getting out of that area of superfluous oversight?  I would take Vint's statement seriously, he usually knows which way the ICANN wind is blowing.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 10/27/2005 3:52 AM >>>

> >
> > Following the terms of the MoU that expires next year?  Isn't ICANN
> > still expecting this? 
> >
>
> It is still an open question as to whether the MOU will be allowed to
> expire next year.

yes, very open.

This is completely under the US Govts' control.

Doesn't ICANN have a say in whether or not they sign an extension ;-P


Wolfgang:
The key point is that ICANN has to do its homeowkr, according to the long list of "deliverables" defined in the last addendum of the MoU. If you go through the list, a lot have to be done. M yimpression is that without the implementation of this list, there will be no termination. And there is still a lot to do, and there are some vague formulations in the MoU which oipens room for interpretatiopn whether the objective has been achieved or not,  in particular with regard to ccTLDs, which gives the DOC any possibility to excuse if it doen´t want to terminate the MoU. 
 
w
 
 
 
 
--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
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


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