<html>
<body>
Thanks Milton. Useful summary. Alan<br><br>
At 27/05/2015 07:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I wanted to get a better sense
of how strongly or weakly the public comments came out on the basic
PTI model, and also to get a sense of community sentiment on composition
of the board. <br>
So I went through the comments and came up with the following. I think
this information will be useful as we enter into the “intensive work
week.” <br>
<br>
Public comments on support for PTI model<br>
====================================<br>
FAVOR: 31<br>
OPPOSE: 10<br>
Not explicitly addressed: 6<br>
<br>
· Of those who OPPOSE PTI in
their comments, 4 wanted more separation, 2 wanted no separation, and 4
saw no point to PTI-style separation.<br>
· Only two entities, AuDA and
SIDN, expressed opposition to PTI and preferred to keep IANA completely
within ICANN. ALAC expressed a preference for keeping it in ICANN but saw
PTI as an acceptable compromise. <br>
· Those who opposed PTI because
it was not true separation were DotConnect Africa, Govt of India, Govt of
Italy, and the research Center at Natl Law U of Delhi <br>
<br>
Based on this, I would say we can move ahead confidently with PTI. Those
who don’t want to create a separate entity at all are a very small
minority. Opposition comes from those who either think that the
separation of IANA does not go far enough, or those who think that such
separation does not accomplish anything. The latter comments tended to
emphasize how PTI would be under ICANN’s control anyway. Thus, if
anything, the comments show that most of the opposition or concerns about
the model are wishing for a stronger separation. PTI as a compromise
middle ground seems to work - it is difficult to conceive of a model that
would add support given the current distribution of opinion. <br>
<br>
Public Comments on PTI board composition<br>
=====================================<br>
Favors ICANN control: 13<br>
Favors an independent or mixed board: 7<br>
Asks to clarify role of board: 3<br>
Not explicitly addressed: 25<br>
<br>
Unfortunately most comments did not explicitly address the composition or
control of the board. Among the 20 who did, 13 favor ICANN control of it.
Those commentators tend to be from business interests from the US and
registries and registrars in the domain name industry. Civil society
interests and developing countries are solidly for a more independent PTI
board. A couple of commentators called for a mixed board, with a majority
of ICANN appointees and the rest independents. which may be a good
compromise. The fact that only a minority of the comments directly
address the question, however, shows that the issue is not as “ripe” as
it could be, and that the community as a whole is not settled on this
issue in my opinion. <br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller<br>
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor<br>
Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
<a href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/">
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a><br>
Internet Governance Project<br>
<a href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</a>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>