>>> Harold Feld <[log in to unmask]> 01/12/04 09:53PM >>>
>I draw the opposite conclusion.  The more registries are left to their own
>devices, the more likely it is that governments will act to protect their own
>citizens.  For example, the registrars seeking to stop WLS in the U.S. district
>court were told that because the WLS went through the ICANN process, they had no
>remedy in court (this is a bit of an oversimplification).

>I cannot say how other governments will feel.  But I would hope that if
>governments see that there is _no_ process to protec their citizens, then they
>will act.  by contrast, if it looks like there is a process, then I think
>governments are more likely to defer to ICANN.  Better no process than a broken
>or crooked one, at least in my opinion.

Apropos of that, here is a quote from Christopher Wilkinson, who
I believe is still GAC representative for the European Commission
(Your home, Marc ;-)

http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2003/11/30/7778.html 
 
Wilkinson is quoted as saying:
 
"My main point is to encourage the GNSO Council to avoid ideological
terminology. We are dealing with a situation currently where many
governments need to know where regulatory authority over the Internet lies.
Currently it lies in the ICANN/GAC public/private partnership. It is not
productive to the present debate to deny that ICANN holds regulatory power.
It has to be there somewhere. It's through ICANN that the Council is acting.
[A registry representative had said that ICANN is not a regulator.] . . . ..
It is not helpful to tell the world that ICANN has no regulatory authority.
If that's the message from the private sector, then many governments will
say that the existing public/private partnership is not enough."

<end quote>

It seems that people in NCUC have different perspectives on this. 
It is ok for the statement to reflect that., However, all members
who are paying attention should weigh in. 
--MM