[governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform

[Lee W McKnight]

Too late for what? WCIT? Remember that's not about Internet governance ; )

Rereading the doc, it has - unfortunately - aged well. Nothing else attempted in the meantime has really gotten traction, and the problems identified  remain.

The main issue is whether it is 'you' or 'we/IGC' suggesting something more or less along these lines.

Since IGP already said its piece a couple years ago, but did folks listen? : (

And in terms of who to talk to when, it's a multi-layered and multi-player process, which an IGC team would have a better chance at winning than little IGP. 

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:12 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform

A bit too late I presume or may be at the right time. But this would
only be possible if:

1. You talk to Fadi Chahde and show him the grim future under his leadership

2. You talk to the ICANN Board and remind them of how important it is
for them to remain ethical and impartial

3. You advocate for this with a targeted advocacy campaign and gain
buy-in from supportive govts, civil society (including both Civil and
Corporate Trade Associations) and finally the private sector like
getting the Internet Giants on your side.

4. You may just create the rhetoric whereas the real world domainers
and market gamers may challenge everything as its an attempt of
building and sustaining a free market economy within the domain name
and IP addressing space.

5. How do you tackle the industry that gives ICANN the buck it makes?

There has always been more than what meets the eye. Normative
approaches will not meet success.

Best

Fouad

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> * Selection of an appropriate body of national law under which ICANN should operate. If California Nonprofit Public Benefit is deemed the best option, then its membership provisions need to be rethought and re-applied to ICANN in a way that does not permit it to evade accountability and substitute open-ended "participation" for binding rights and obligations vis-à-vis its members.
> * GAC should be dissolved and the Supporting Organizations opened to participation by individuals from governments.
> * As a final step, providing a legal foundation for ICANN as described above would allow for the dissolution of the existing IANA contract when
> appropriate. But until the process was completed the U.S. would, de facto, be able to retain that authority.
>
> We believe that formal action by the U.S. in agreement with other cooperative states is the only way to finalize the transition. Without such a legal framework, ICANN's accountability and process problems will not be solved, and may worsen. Without a transition away from the JPA, on the other hand, ICANN's legitimacy will continue to suffer, domestic U.S. interests will continue to exploit U.S. oversight to achieve shortterm



--
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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