Is anyone in the Constituency interested in organizing a meeting --
online or by telephone -- with the candidates for the Board? Other
Constituencies are doing this, and it might be quite interesting.
Regards,
Kathy
Milton posted:
<<Discussion with Philip Sheppard about his positions on ICANN
issues.
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