Return-path: <[log in to unmask]> Received: from mx2.syr.edu [128.230.20.21] by gwia201.syr.edu; Fri, 26 May 2006 05:19:46 -0400 Received: from turbo.aim.be (118.216-78-194.adsl-fix.skynet.be [194.78.216.118]) by mx2.syr.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4Q9JhpI017337 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <[log in to unmask]>; Fri, 26 May 2006 05:19:45 -0400 Received: from turbo.aim.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turbo.aim.be (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id k4Q9JftY017109 for <[log in to unmask]>; Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:41 +0200 Received: from 87.65.163.36 (SquirrelMail authenticated user philip) by mailbox.aim.be with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]> In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> References: <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: questions about your positions From: [log in to unmask] To: "Milton Mueller" <[log in to unmask]> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Milton, thanks for this. Happy for you to share the answers. Philip > 1. competition. > by "competition at the registry level" do you mean inter-TLD > competition (more new registries) or competition for an exclusive > assignment of existing TLDs (e.g., bidding for .org or .net or .info) or > both? Both. There have to be new gTLDs and a certain process for them. We are already discussing the idea of a form contract for a new registry - so that an applicant registry knows up front what it is in for. This would end the odd discrepancies in registry contracts we see today. Further, there must be an end to the piecemeal batch process of the past. And until the subsequent competition makes significant inroads to the existing dominance I support competitive re-bidding as well. > 2. governments and GAC > do you see icann's private sector governance model as threatened by > recent developments strengthening the (sometimes arbitrary) role of > national governments and GAC, or not? do you see any need for reforms in > how GAC operates or how it relates to GNSO policy process? do you > believe that the Board should be able to say "no" to GAC? > ICANN treads a fine line and in the real world must be seen to be responsive to reasonable goverment pressure. However, ICANN also has founding principles. If the Board always acts in accord with those principles, it establishes the ground upon which it can indeed say no to government pressure. As to GAC operation, the informalilty of the GAC today is actually an advantage. It is quite different to other inter-governmental bodies even those with more business senses like the OECD. An intelligent way forward is for better GAC involvement at the early stages of policy development, so that it buys into the results. Giving it the ability to comment from on high will be a cause of conflict. I'd be interested in your own thoughts on this too. Philip