[governance] US Congress & the JPA

[George Sadowsky]

Hi, Willie,

I thought that Congressman Stearns' comments were a mixture of the 
most perceptive and the most uninformed (a curious mixture) of the 
group.  He did not understand the difference between the ongoing fees 
and the proposed fees for top-level new gTLDs.  He also did not 
understand that non-profits in general are strongly encouraged to 
have reserves equivalent to a year's worth of operating expenses.  He 
also did not understand the limits of ICANN's mandate.

But his drilling down in the financial information, on Twomey's 
salary, on this strange contract with an Australian company (of which 
I have been informed that Ira Magaziner is a partner) that Twomey 
claimed that the Board approved,  on the alternative uses of funds 
that ICANN could chose, and in particular why there weren't more 
funds dedicated to security and stability --- hey, what does that say 
about the community's priorities  (!!!)   ---  was masterful.  In 
fact, I think that the congressional staffs generally did a good job 
in preparing questions.  The conversation was blunt and revealing, 
with a minimum of political correctness, a model for learning that I 
like very much.

It was an unfortunate hearing for ICANN.  The mood of the Congress is 
such that the JPA is likely to be continued in some form or other. 
Also, I think that NTIA came out of the process somewhat bloodied, so 
that perhaps the next version of the JPA could be with another office 
in our government.

Given also the presumed imminent change of ICANN's CEO, this is a 
very interesting time for ICANN and for those related aspects of 
Internet governance as well.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


At 11:34 AM -0400 6/5/09, Willie Currie wrote:
>Hi George
>
>Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms crossed...
>
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on 
>ICANN's surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil 
>and is using it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. 
>So Stearns was asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its 
>fee structures, esp as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil 
>next year. Asked about this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy 
>Institute said that this was related to the problem of 
>accountability as ICANN is only accontable to itself.
>
>Willie
>
>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>All:
>>
>>The bottom of the web  page:
>>
>>
>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74
>>
>>
>>contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of 
>>the entire hearing.
>>
>>I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the 
>>amount of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of 
>>understanding of opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent 
>>and perceptive things that were said.
>>
>>3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but 
>>the video contains interesting body language that a transcript 
>>would not convey.
>>
>>George
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

____________________________________________________________
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