[discuss] let's get concrete

Mon Apr 21 11:01:37 UTC 2014

I guess it's been a while since I focused on the language you quote, what specifically is the import today  of "lessening the burdens of government"?

On the topic more broadly, I'm not sure that the NTIA statement created a scope limitation per se, as much as a solution limitation - the conditions that had to be met in order to be accepted inducing stable, secure and multistakeholder.  More recently the concept of pressure tested has been added as away of demonstrating some of the required attributes.

A useful concept was raised, however - cost.  Many of the services are provided at no cost to the user including the oversight and root management functions.  When evaluating other services in being as good or comparable, how do we factor cost?  Checks and balances are created by separation of duties and contractual limitations - how do the benefits of the architecture get preserved?  Are there limitations in that architecture that should be reconsidered?

While I appreciate the broadly conceptual discussions between democratic and multistakeholder and which may be the subset of the other, there are some fairly concrete issues which also need to be addressed.   There have been previous attempts in these discussions to create the list of topics, but then we get dragged back into a conceptual divide and the discussion runs out, or we jump into micro details of a specific function.  May I suggest that we have a dedicated conversation at the level of the existing architecture and the relationships or checks and balances between the functions and responsibilities of the parties?

Joe

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 20, 2014, at 11:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There's another option: because they are doing the job now, and nobody
> else wants it.
> 
> Given the amount of sheer greed we have seen around gTLDs since
> the idea of adding new ones was first seriously raised, we would
> have to question seriously the motivations of *anyone* who wants the
> job, whether it's ICANN or some mysterious alternative.
> 
> Any motivation other than helping the Internet to work better would
> be worrisome.
> 
> Phrases like "This Corporation is a nonprofit public benefit
> corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person"
> and "the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof,
> pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of
> government and promoting the global public interest in the operational
> stability of the Internet" would be needed.
> 
> In fact, the only change I'd like to see in ICANN's Articles of
> Incorporation would be modification of Article 9 to forbid certain
> phrases (such as those quoted above) from ever being amended.
> 
>   Brian
> 
>> On 21/04/2014 13:41, DAVID JOHNSON wrote:
>> At some personal risk, I am going to emulate george and try to pose some concrete questions.
>> 
>> If icann is to continue to perform the dns related iana functions, is that going to be just because they are doing it now, and want it, or because discussing any other option is "out of scope", or because some existing or new entity contacts with them to do it?
>> 
>> If the mandate comes from some counter-party, what are the terms?
>> (certainly good operation of the iana function. what other conditions?)
>> 
>> If there is such a contract, how would it be enforced? 
>> What reason would there be to think the counter-party would enforce it?
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss