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

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 17 14:57:44 UTC 2014

Thanks, Mike, for your comments below. I want to raise a concern that at least I have that we need to address within ICANN itself.  

There is a lot of discussion of external forcing of change, and I will work with others on this list and in various fora to consider all the events, meetings, and discussions outside of ICANN.
However, those within ICANN need to be working within ICANN itself on improvements to ICANN accountability mechanisms.  

Today, ICANN's accountability mechanisms are just work in progress, and the ATRT1 and 2 both acknowledged the urgency of truly independent accountability mechanisms.

I am not looking for external forcing of such improvements and changes, but work within the ICANN COMMUNITY, as a bottom up process. 

I see a range of ideas from folks being debated, or at least brainstormed about related to IANA.

I see ideas about: 
-a new multilateral organization
-a new multilateral organization composed of multiple governments
-some who think that a form of opinion /multistakeholder participatory engagement is an acceptable approach to make highly technical decisions that affect stability and security of one of the world's important connectivity/resources -- the Internet. 

Within ICANN's community/Stakeholders, there is an opportunity to contribute to the way that we improve and strengthen ICANN from within. 

Accountability mechanisms within ICANN, and about ICANN's decisions are a baseline requirement, it seems to me, and while there are a plethora of Strat Panels funded by ICANN to bring in ideas, still the work of improving, strengthening, and fixing gaps lies with the ICANN community. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:44 PM, "Mike Roberts" <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> wrote:
>> Ian Peter
>> PS I would also suggest that ICANN utilise an outside independent consultancy based outside of the USA to conduct this study and consult all stakeholders and prepare the directions paper, in the interests of expediency and efficiency.
> It appears that there is beginning to emerge a way forward.
> However much many of us might dislike it, the fact is that the U.S. Congress and senior govt ministries hold trump cards if a proposal emerges that offends them.  In the present atmosphere of worldwide terrorist attacks and threats, they are easily offended.
> Although some might favor a proposal that dwells on the many deficiencies of USG behavior toward ICANN and IANA, it would be much more productive to have one that results in the active engagement of the U.S. in making it happen, rather than being consigned to the large dustbin of schemes that attracted political disfavor. The wording of Ian's PS above is the type of thing that attracts "disfavor."
> One additional point to consider in constructing a new arrangement is that Verisign operates the master root server, from which all the updates are distributed to other servers, under a contractual cooperative agreement that is entirely separate from USG links to ICANN.  It would not accomplish much in the way of global IG MS if we got the IANA changes, but the Department of Commerce and Verisign continued, as they do today, to have a choke hold on updates to the A server.
> - Mike
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140217/5dcb785b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list