vote on "Sense of the Caucus" (was Re: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here)

[Avri Doria]

Hi,


Interesting idea, but i think it would take more then a name of an  
idea to know how to choose.  E.g. what does enhanced cooperation  
mean?  it takes more then a name to represent an idea.

now if the proponents of each of these ideas were to take the time to  
explain what they mean and how it would work, we might have a  
worthwhile polling exercise.

some might argue that this is a waste of effort since this narrow  
topic is not the important one or not one we can do anything about.  i  
am not sure whether i actually agree or not, what i do believe is that  
topic is the political gorilla in the room and under we reach some  
closure on it, we are not going to move on to all  the other pressing  
issues.  while this issue, the USG unilateral control on the root,  
remains a issue that divides us between those who think it is a US  
finger to the world and those who believe it is the only possible  
solution for security and stability we do not seem to be going anywhere.

this is true for the small microcosm of the IGC as well.  so maybe  
after we finish the elections and before we start  the election to  
renew/replace PS it might be interesting to see where we fall in this  
discussion.  how do those who do not write messages statiscally feel  
on this subject?  i would be curious to know.

a.



On 10 Aug 2008, at 10:05, McTim wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps a useful way to move forward is to have a vote on a general
> direction the caucus would like to move on this issue.  Since, thanks
> to IGP folk, we have web voting possibilities, we can have multiple
> choices, from this thread, we seem to have these general positions:
>
> A) take the DOC at their word that they will never under
> any plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root
> and, hence, over ICANN, and that caucus efforts to change this will be
> unproductive.
>
> B) it's an inappropriate structure for a global network, whether
> managed benignly or not. It has to change
>
> C) it might be useful to see what could be done, in cooperation with
> other interested stakeholders, to bring about that which should happen
> no matter how much DOC says it won't.
>
> D) Enhanced cooperation - EC
>
> E) The IGF - clearly a multi-stakeholder body - which could have
> possibly developed towards various possibilities of greater soft etc
> power.
>
> F) For the next review of the JPA, have list members tell the NTIA
> how we could have rock solid guarantees of exactly the same levels of
> security, stability, and control in the last instance as now.
>
> G) for ICANN to move offshore, restructure, set up an alternative
> authorisation structure with the UN, create another A root
>
> H) ICANN MOU with the UN
>
> I) terminating the JPA
>
> J) internet can have multiple, consistent root systems
>
> K) None of the above
>
> L) ??
>
> M)??
>
> What have I missed (insert as L and M) ?
>
> Of course, one could vote for as many of the above as one wanted.
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> mctim.blogspot.com
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance