[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Sun Feb 9 22:36:30 UTC 2014

Hi,

I essentially agree with this.  I think it could just need  a host 
country agreement with Switzerland (or some similar neutral country) and 
could be done without any Inter-governmental action, though with their 
advice as part of ICANN's GAC.

ICANN used to say, e.g. 8 years ago when I used to try and talk about 
this, that because they 'regulated' (without ever using the R-word of 
course) via contract this was not possible.  I think that has been shown 
to be not the case, though I am not a lawyer etc.  I tend to think that 
the move that FC made with drawing a dotted line (a 'picket fence') 
between the GTLD Division and the rest of ICANN does enable all sorts of 
creative solutions.

And I also agree, the dog eat dog world of greed is alive and well at 
ICANN.  Though at least now, other concerns are starting to gain a bit 
of effective voice.

avri

On 09-Feb-14 16:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> George,
>
> In a few words: yes, I believe that an NGO status seated in
> Switzerland is the best choice (as it was in 1998). I agree that
> some degree of multi-government consensus is required as part of
> the multi-stakeholder approach. I think that the equivalent of the
> Red Cross convention is overkill, however; an NGO can be set up
> with no such backing.
>
> One thing that I haven't seen discussed here, and is part of the
> problem, is greed. There's no doubt that many of the strange things
> that have happened in the TLD world over the last 15 years have been
> motivated by greed. We need the new dispensation to include mechanisms
> that reduce rather than increase the impact of greed on decision-making
> abou the contents of the root zone.
>
> Regards
>     Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>