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

Wed Feb 19 10:11:35 UTC 2014

LP Hartley wrote in the Go Between "The past is foreign country".  ICANN
is too fat to fit through the eye of the needle in front of it.

We all know it. Surely!?

Why would the US be unhappy being on the starting blocks with a  global
65% + market share of the domain business already in its jurisdiction?
Why would ICANN be unhappy with a tightly focused multi-stakeholder
global technical co-ordination role with prospect of the IANA function
included? 

Why would international treaty organisations, NGOs and others not be
interested in assisting and taking roles in co-ordinating parts of the
multi stakeholder communities they are close to and needed to interact
usefully with technical co-ordination ?  It is not as if there are not a
lot of operational and other issues that need urgent work from deploying
and using digital networks outside ICANN and IANA remits that dwarf
these resource specific technical policy challenges. 

Christian

S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> At 13:23 18-02-2014, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>> Maybe if ICANN did a little less then it might be easier to place?
>>
>> I am intrigued by Steve Crocker's interesting note referencing RFC
>> 1591. If the market regulatory aspects of gTLDs was to be delegated
>> as ccTLDs are to countries (jurisdictions) that could take a lot of
>> the sting out of this tail.
>>
>> A repurposed ICANN for technical co-ordination between stakeholders
>> including those jurisdictions might produce more substantial legal
>> and diplomatic clue. The knot of issues crisscrossing through ICANN
>> now look more like a Gordium knot than a slip knot.
>
> From http://archive.icann.org/en/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm
>
>   "ICANN was born with a particular and intense focus on process and
> representation.
>    Undue focus on process to the exclusion of substance and
> effectiveness is the
>    second major problem facing ICANN."
>
> Rumour has it that 63% of the gTLD contracts are with companies from
> the United States.  It is left to the reader to assess whether it
> would be possible to have a change of jurisdiction (re. comment about
> RFC 1591).
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy