[governance] Statement made in Plenary

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I am not sure that is the case,  (btw, i don't think i was thinking  
as an engineer, just using a metaphor and a method suggested by  
McTim's message).

I thought that this was key concern.  in fact, i would think it would  
be a concern even if the US were to hold onto its control of ICANN  
and the root longer then anyone on this list would be comfortable  
with.  At the moment, there is nowhere for anyone to take a grievance  
beyond the ombudsman who is an employee of ICANN except for the US  
gov't.  If someone is unhappy with a decision or believes that  
decision if contrary to established international principles and  
norms, they must attempt to invoke the extraordinary power of the US  
DoC to correct the problem.

I think what we were trying to do in this statement was suggest text  
with the understanding that in the remote possibility that any part  
of it would be adopted, it would diplomaticized.

Personally, I would be comfortable with changing all the language to  
a request.  I.e.

We request that ICANN take steps to insure a full and equal msh  
process ...
We request that ICANN establish clear and transparent ...
We request that a process for for extraordinary appeal ...
We request that ICANN negotiate and appropriate ...

...

Of course there are other words such as 'urge' or 'recommend'.

having worked through the text thinking of the words must and should  
or even require, i find i would prefer different language that said  
pretty much the same thing, but which recognized that this is not up  
to us or the governement but is up to the ICANN and Us DoC.

On another topic, slightly, i think we should add elements that talk  
about the stabilty and should indicate that we believe (if we have  
consensus on such beleif) that if ICANN and the US DoC do not do as  
we request believe that this will have the long range effect of  
destabilizing the network, since it will give those who are  
disaffected the excuse they need to take actions that would  
destabilize; i.e establishing multiple root zone files.  and while i  
believe that technology would find a way around this, it would still  
be destabilizing.

a.



On 2 okt 2005, at 11.13, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Avri Doria ha scritto:
>
>>>> There should be a process for extraordinary appeal of ICANN'S   
>>>> decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder  
>>>> review  commission invoked on a case-by-case basis.
>>>>
>> hmmm.  we used a should here.  i guess the question for us is why  
>> is  this only a should.  is there any case in which it is not  
>> reasonable  for a process to be established that could be used on  
>> a case by case  basis as required?
>>
>
> I guess that's because we were thinking as human beings, not as  
> engineers... so "should" means "we think that there must be one,  
> but if everyone else disagrees, we can live without it".
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] 
> <-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>
>

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