The NGO and Academic Internet Study (NAIS) has weighed in with its response to the Lynn Plan. By NAIS standards, maybe by any standard, this is a firm but polite response. Given, however, that the Lynn plan basically tells the NAIS and like-minded parties to find a short pier and take a long walk, it could have been a lot tougher.
The NAIS notes, accurately, that were the ICANN Board to use the Lynn report as an excuse to defer action on the ALSC recommendations it would abridge its own processes and also effectively ensure that the next elections could not be held on schedule. Not to decide is to decide. The NAIS also complains, with much justice, that Lynn plan fails to provide "adequate support" for "openness, transparency, inclusiveness, and participation".
Politeness begins to win out over firmness (and reality) in the concluding paragraph, where the NAIS says that,
we believe that the appropriateness
of the Lynn reforms will not be clear without an explanation as to what the
core mission activities are. We urge Dr. Lynn to elaborate on his own
conception of ICANN's technical coordination mission, to define the
activities that constitute that mission, and to continue to explore
mechanisms to ensure compliance with that mission.
As David Post explained on ICANNWatch a few days ago, the Lynn Plan is nothing less than a blueprint for mission creep. One would like to say that politely asking for clarification of the obvious provides a formula for a face-saving retreat, and indeed life often works that way. But it's never happened before with ICANN.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.