Re: [ALSC-Forum] Esther Dyson's SF Gate article

[Jeff Williams]

Thomas and all stakeholders,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Alexander Svensson pointed out to me that www.atlargestudy.org has a
> somewhat hidden link to an article of Esther Dyson, "Challenges for
> domain managers", which is available
> here:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/05/27/BU171918.DTL&type=printable>

  This is one of several of Esthers "Writings".  Rather disjointed in it's presentation.
And pretty much follows her line of thinking for her other disjointed "Writings"
as well.  I have read two of Eshters books (Not top ten sellers to be sure).


>
>
> In this article, Esther gives a short outline of the Committee's
> work, and tells the reader about some ideas on what user
> participation in ICANN may look like.  She writes that "what ICANN
> needs ultimately is the equivalent of political parties.  Perhaps a
> No New TLDs party, [more examples]". These parties should then
> organize themselves, "without permission or direction from ICANN".

   This is one place where I agree with Esther.  However it doesn't seem to
match another part of this same "Writing" of hers.  To wit: "ICANN still faces new challenges, among them
New.net, a private company that is end-running ICANN's domain
name system with a somewhat incompatible approach. If ICANN does its job right, it will prevail on the basis
of a more attractive system, not on the basis of its own limited
powers."

>
>
> Esther then notes that this approach would of course be an
> experiment, "but a marketplace for ideas is a lot better than one
> for people", she says.
>
> I'm wondering how this construction fits with current official ICANN
> "theology", according to which the board is mostly executing
> consensus achieved within the supporting organizations, which are
> supposed to actually make policy.
>
> Doesn't a markeplace for ideas - which is ultimately used for the
> selection of board members - at the same time imply that still more
> policy should be handled at the board level, not at the SO level?

  No I don't think so.  And the White Paper as well as  the MoU
also are not in agreement with this sort of policy making process,
Thomas.  Yet we see the ICANN BoD making policy in this manner
in direct conflict with the White Paper and the MoU.

>
>
> Doesn't the original design of ICANN _require_ a marketplace for
> people for the nomination of directors, in order to gather the
> necessary expertise on the board?

  Yes it does.  Yet this piece is still missing, and no funds have been
set aside for the next @large election.

>  Doesn't it, in fact, require the
> directors _not_ to pursue just their own ideas and interests, but
> what's best for the community, and what's the community's consensus?

  Yes it does.  Yet again the ICANN BoD especially while Esther
was the COB, doesn't and did not do this at all...  So one has to wonder
what her real motives are, and how she could be really and independent
member of this committee now...

>
>
> Note that I don't think that Esther's ideas are bad just because
> they seem to contradict ICANN's original design.  I'm just wondering
> what kind of design is actually more practicable, and which one is
> better in terms of transparency, accountability, and creating the
> best results.

  Transparency by definition really requires openness, as does accountability
for the most part.  The MoU provides for this openness, yet from almost the
beginning the ICANN BoD has yet to be open to any and all "Interested
Parties" as the White Paper and the MoU require.  As such, the ICANN
BoD and yes, Esther Dyson as well, are not and have not been in
compliance with their contractual requirements to date and made/imposed
policy that has greatly effected a huge number of stakeholders and future
stakeholders.

>
>
> What do you folks think?
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208