[governance] ITU vs. ICANN

[JFC Morfin]

At 06:01 16/10/2010, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>I don't think that I am alone in finding myself unable to raise 
>enough optimism to overcome the fact that the ALAC was designed with 
>the express intent for it to be crippled.
>
>I've tried over the years to give the ALAC the benefit of the doubt; 
>in no small part through my efforts the public may eventually get 
>one board seat.  But that does not mean that I'm going to blind 
>myself to the incapacities that were designed into the ALAC to 
>prevent it from affecting the goals of ICANN's $$ based "stakeholders".

+1

The real issue as I understand it is about the range of time of the 
considered scopes. There are three range of time, hence three scopes 
to manage : short, medium and long term. Governance is medium term 
management, Adminance is long management, and Use is short term. The 
three of them should work together. However, ICANN is a system to 
prevent that joint effort from happening in order to protect medium 
term marketshares. Its natural (I do not think there is any plot) 
behaviour is therefore to delay issues to prevent the user influence 
and to hide long term issues to prevent politics to interfere. Short 
term marketshare have been delegated to registrars to keep users 
distant and long term marketshare has been allocated once for all to 
"industry" (ISOC + ISOC/IETF/IAB). A crippled ALAC is the natural way 
to help short term issues to be delayed into the ICANN influenced 
mid-term Governance.

There is a coming time short-cut: the entrance of Lead Users in the 
adminance area through their own extended value Internet Use 
Interface technology providing an experience of smart Internet. This 
will be of interest for the future of the Internet and of its 
use/governance/adminance sequence.

>At 12:19 16/10/2010, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>As Karl mentions, the RIR approach does not work in all policy 
>areas. The DNS, for example, attracts very diverse and antagonistic 
>interests. While the RIRs have every reason to be happy that there 
>"narrow subject area" approach works out for the address space, I 
>don't think one can generalize this as a model for all IG related areas.

hmm ! RIR benefit from a narrowed subject area due to ICANN screening 
of future. The US "DNS" delegation is about Class IN and IP 
addressing. Who is talking of the Use's need of local address global 
region(s)  (IDv6, i.e. the ability to globally use local IPv6 
extensions).  This protects the IPv4 auction business.

jfc  

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t