Re: [ALSC-Forum] Fwd: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing Committee

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Esther Dyson" <edyson@edventure.com>
> >Hence the big discussions about ICANN's supposed  "mission creep." As
long
> >as ICANN keeps to its by-consensus, by-contract architecture, that
mission
> >creep is almost impossible.  But the moment it became part of, say,
the
> >ITU (or remained with the USG), it *would* have such authority/powers
and
> >would inevitably be drawn into conflicts it should avoid.
> >
> >Those conflicts won't go away, and perhaps those issues do belong
with the
> >ITU.  But ICANN's current formulation will help it to stay clear of
them.

Esther, the ITU has just proposed the following exercise:

"4. Working with ICANN to define an internationally agreed restatement
and
   description of the boundaries for ICANN's policy-making
   activities, if any, while respecting the sovereign rights of
governments.
   For example, consideration could be given to developing an ITU-T
   Recommendation with this goal."

Right now there are no meaningful legal boundaries for ICANN's
activities.   The Articles of Incorporation are not only very broad, but
they can be easily modified by the board.   The board so far has never
really come up with a useful boundary statement.  This is not a
complaint about actual mission creep.   This is about setting some type
of policy in place for the future, to constrain future boards.   The ITU
has now stepped up to the plate on this.   It seems to me that this
might be a useful thing to do.

On a separate but related topic, we (the NGO E-Commerce Roundtable) met
yesterday with DOC, to discuss ICANN.   Some of us encouraged DOC to
consider a re-bid on its ICANN contracts, to allow for competition.
There is an issue of whether or not there are consequences when
non-profits fail to deliver as promised.   On the "reform" front,
several of us pushed for a decentralization of the DNSO functions,
perhaps through regional DNSO bodies, simliar to what one sees in the
numbering area.   Some believe that 90 percent of ICANN's problems
relate to the DNSO, and that few of the DNSO policies need to be made at
a global level.

Jamie