[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] US Government's ultimate control.
- To: Alf Hansen <aha@uninett.no>
- Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] US Government's ultimate control.
- From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:50:05 +1300
- Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <39D7A638.E664AF74@uninett.no>
- References: <200009292352.LAA27989@fep3-orange.clear.net.nz><200010010510.SAA17164@fep3-orange.clear.net.nz>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
At 23:01 1/10/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
>When I use the word "own", I mean the entity with the power to shut
>ICANN down as a company. That is what "owners" can do. "Owners" of a
>company can do lot of things, but usually they do not manage the day to
>day business, like running the roots.
>
O.K. Then under that definition the "owner" is the Attorney General of the
State of California.
It's stretching things a bit, because this is a political function and
shutting down ICANN would be a political act.
>> But we are still left with the problem of definition, mechanism and proof.
>
>Yes. I am trying to focus on the transition-from-USG-process. The
>transition will never take place until WE are able to present an
>alternative structure.
Alf, may I presume that you mean: to fix what we already have?
Providing an alternative structure is exactly what I have done
bootstrapping the IDNO, with the help of a few dedicated volunteers. The
structure is for a specific interest group (the Ind DN holders) but the
effort of building it and guarding it against capture during the
rule-building stage is the same.
It is non-trivial effort.
You will find out when we in ICANN Europe try to structure ourselves.
>That is why I am starting to ask: Who can be the
>"owners" after a trannsition? ISOC? May be not, but we have to work out
>something.
>
Yes, ISOC is too controversial, also due to the role its leaders have
played in the IAHC coup attempt.
It has no mechanism to consult the members for major policy decisions.
>If the ICANN Board could present a plan with a timescale,
>based on advice from the At-Large and/or the SOs, that would be nice...
How can the At-Large give advice before it has any structure?
( Rather than having this dialogue with Alf alone, I would like to hear how
Jeanette and Andy MM see this dilemma)
-- if the Board cannot be trusted to dictate a balanced structure from the
top down, how much time would you give the At large body to come up with
a structure from the bottom -up?
Would the EU elected Board member be willing to act as bootstrap?
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association and
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org