ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    ICANN Staff and Structure Where Are the Lynn Plan's Defenders?
    posted by michael on Monday February 25 2002, @11:31AM

    There have been some good personal and institutional comments attacking the Lynn plan, but where are the comments supporting it? Surely there must be people out there, neither paid by ICANN nor profiting from it, who like this idea? Pointers please if you have them.

    Meanwhile, on the this-plan-is-awful side of the street, don't miss Randy Bush's comments or Karl Auerbach's comments. More inside...



    A sample of Karl's:
    The current management finds that the overhead of public participation within ICANN is simply too inconvenient.

    Imagine that Bush had abolished popular elections because he claims that the Florida situation demonstrates that elections are unworkable. Well, that's what ICANN's management has said.

    I'm sure that you will hear a mantra about "no decisions have yet been made" - well the mere existance of this plan has derailed all the work on creating an at-large membership in ICANN. So even if "no decision has been made", the at-large effort has been essentially killed.

    Here's a snippet from Randy Bush's comments:
    imiho,

    o again, icann is more interested in, and totally focused on, arranging power rather than providing simple stewardship and service. icann is brilliant at rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. the problem is they have the internet on board.

    o why does icann have to spend $10m to run the root servers when it never usd to cost anything? they're run voluntarily. heck, i know isps who give free circuits to them!

    o icann could be run for $1-2m/yr - scale down operations and fancy meetings *completely*, meet at ripe, inet, ... - get back to simple stewardship and management - *earn* the cooperation of cctlds, registries, and they can support a *small* icann, ...

    Alexander Svensson has drawn a useful chart trying to describe the new ICANN Board structure, although I think the version I saw missed the hermetic nature of the loops -- since the board has a lot of input into the choice of it successors, there's not as much room for outside input as this makes it seem.

    Slashdot has a thread on the Lynn plan.

    And here are links to more press coverage: the Guardian, Call for more government control of the net"; Associated Press, Net oversight body to face major restructuring? (via cnn.com) and ICANN Internet Proposal Criticized (via yahoo.com).

    But, I repeat, where are the plan's advocates and defenders? Perhaps more will appear after today's news cycle, jump started by ICANN's press conference this morning.


     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • a useful chart
  • thread on the Lynn plan
  • Call for more government control of the net"
  • Net oversight body to face major restructuring?
  • ICANN Internet Proposal Criticized
  • Randy Bush's comments
  • Karl Auerbach's comments
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Where Are the Lynn Plan's Defenders? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 6 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    A few more articles
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Monday February 25 2002, @12:35PM (#5071)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    siliconvalley.com, ICANN to change name to UCANT
    Reuters, ICANN chief proposes new standards (via Zdnet)
    David McGuire, Newsbytes.com,
    ICANN President Defends Proposed Reforms
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Where Are the Lynn Plan's Defenders?
    by Mpawlo on Tuesday February 26 2002, @01:06AM (#5075)
    User #2936 Info | http://www.pawlo.com/
    Well, if ICANN is supposed to have a broader scope of business I think it is approriate to involve the users more. While the ICANN elections are a true joke (just look at the results in Africa) a representation of users and non-users through theirs governments respectively is a good idea in my opinion.

    From a democratic point of view, this is a much better proposal than the one suggested by the At Large Study Committee where domain name holders should be the ones electing ICANN board members.

    If ICANN is not supposed to broaden its scope of action, the proposal might be a view of slightly overdoing the administration of new top level domain names.

    Just my EURO 0,02.

    Mikael Pawlo

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Where Are the Lynn Plan's Defenders?
    by polk on Tuesday February 26 2002, @05:29AM (#5078)
    User #30 Info
    I'm not sure I'd classify myself as a defender, but . . .

    I can't see the theoretical objection to trying to get governments involved in the process. If the last few years of ICANN has taught us anything, it's that a so-called "private" governance structure will have many of the same challenges with accountability and transparency as traditional goverments do. And at least we've got things in place to try to address these issues in the real government context. (Frankly, I would not feel any worse about the DNS if it was being run by the Department of Commerce.)

    Second, I would imagine that as governments get involved, even _less_ actual policymaking, etc. will get done. If we think the present ICANN processes are slow and inefficient -- try mixing in several government bodies! As one who views the ICANN role as -- shall we say -- more limited than what the current ICANN-ers seem to believe, this strikes me as another positive for the Lynn plan, though perhaps not one Lynn would suggest.

    Third, if there is a long-term danger to the DNS system, it is (in my view) the governmentally-decreed segmentation of the system. This can (and I expect will) happen as various governments start to pay more attention to ICANN and its problems -- and literally "take their networks and go home". Perhaps this danger can be limited by getting governments involved and buying-in to ICANN.

    I do agree with many of the objections to the plan. I cannot imagine how ICANN can spend so much money. I seriously doubt that the Bush Department of Commerce wants to wade back into this morass (absent some serious technical crisis).

    Again, not really a defense, just some observations . . .
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com