[discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

Pindar Wong pindar.wong at gmail.com
Tue Mar 18 23:51:47 UTC 2014

Hi Barry

It's been a long while...and thanks for this hub-spoke thought piece.  Two
quick questions:-

1) Would this model prohibit  the 'relatively autonomous' spokes forming
inter-spoke relationships if necessary  i.e. moving from pure Hub-Spoke ->
Mesh (or would be it Hub-Spoke forevermore)?

2) Although you put it as TBD, when do you view your 'adjudication arm for
settling any disputes' being established i.e. would there need to be
procedural certainty beforehand or would there be a mechanism to evolve it
as the form and nature of disputes emerge or are better understood?



On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:

> The immediate problem is one of trust: In the management, the
> structure, in its lawfulness, and its ability and effectiveness in
> representing and executing on global views.
> I would suggest that the current top layers of management at ICANN --
> executive and board -- spin itself off into a global organization.
> Call that the hub.
> Everything else, GNSO, Registry/Registrar contract managment, DNSA,
> GAC, etc -- the stakeholders -- each become relatively autonomous
> spokes to that hub. Some or all of these will need some formalization
> for their own executive and administrative management.
> The role of the new hub is to ensure the community interest,
> accountability and transparency, manage a budget, and importantly to
> administer a centralized assembly with specific powers -- call it a
> general assembly -- of the spokes.
> The spokes choose hub board members and have input into approval of
> the hub's executive management. Certain roles (e.g., chair) are
> delegated to the board itself.
> You instantly have a top-tier organization which has been globalized
> but is recognized as being capable of performing the executive and
> administrative functions.
> It's the same people we all know on day one just reorganized a little
> into a more globally responsive structure.
> There is no immediate need for agonizing over choosing some new
> top-level hierarchy (i.e., people, process.)
> That can occur evolutionarily within the re-org structure.
> This General Assembly (spokes) can add new spokes (stakeholder groups)
> as needed by some typical voting regimen with the hub attending to
> issues of adherence to by-laws, budget, transparency, etc.
> A major missing piece (TBD) is an adjudication arm for settling any
> disputes between the hub and spokes which seem to come down to
> disagreement over interpretation of by-laws and precedent (i.e., can't
> simply be resolved by a vote, for example "can we vote on XYZ???"),
> whether process was properly followed, etc.
> P.S. Whenver I see "DNSA" I can't help but think distributed-NSA but
> perhaps that's my technical side :-)
> --
>         -Barry Shein
> The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR,
> Canada
> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140319/9bbe27d6/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list