Re: [ALSC-Forum] Evaluation of NAIS and ALSC Reports

[Joe Sims]

thanks for these cogent comments.  a couple of responses

1.  We have different views on ICANN's priorities.  You say stability is
only one of many equally important objectives.  In my view, stability is
not only the most important mission for ICANN, but it is the necessary
base for all other objectives; if the DNS does not work, ICANN will have
failed, no matter what other objectives it has met.  There seems to be
some confusion about what stability means; to me, it means the continued
effective functioning of the DNS.  It does not mean lack of innovation,
or protection of vested interests, but more simply the practical working
of this complex and fragile resource.  Thus, any effort to serve some
other objective or part of what some see as ICANN's mission that
threatens continued effective working of the DNS bears a particularly
high burden of persuasion. 

2.  Your history is correct but the conclusion is not.  There was never
a consensus in the community on electing half of the ICANN Board; this
was a concept demanded by the previous US Administration as a
precondition to its recognition of ICANN.  The fact that this position
did not reflect a consensus position of the Internet community was for
some reason not the impediment that it should have been.  The Board
tried very hard to find a way to implement that commitment that did have
consensus support, notwithstanding its lack of consensus legitmacy, but
it failed to accomplish that very difficult task, in part because of the
insistance of some that this particular structure and process was the
only acceptable result, notwithstanding the views of any other
stakeholders.  This led to the ALSC, as an effort to essentially start
the process over in the hope that some consensus solution could be
discovered.  Thus, it is no more correct to say that the 9-9 split
written in stone than it is to say that any current ICANN policy could
never be changed, even if a global consensus or changed circumstances
would dictate.  This is especially true given the fact that this
position was never a consensus position of the Internet community, but
was rather dictated by a single government.  In other circumstances,
many of those who see the 9-9 split as non-negotiable would see ICANN
policies imposed by fiat by one (or even many) governments particularly
unattractive.  Thus, it seems to me that the real debate here should be
on the policy merits, not on this somewhat messy history. 

3.  Finally, just a point of clarification.  The existing bylaws of
ICANN make no provision for further At Large elections; this was the
result of the Cairo Compromise, in which the Board agreed to direct
elections of five directors for two years, during which time the ALSC
would conduct a "clean sheet" study.  Thus, any new elections require
the amendment of the bylaws to insert in Article II the criteria and
procedures for any such elections.  So the fact is that "clean sheet"
means just that -- the ICANN bylaws are a blank sheet on this subject,
and any further At Large elections will require a 2/3 vote of the ICANN
Board to write on that "clean sheet."

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========