[discuss] let's get concrete

[Brian E Carpenter]

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
>