[CWG-Stewardship] Agenda item 5 - Alternate proposals

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
>
>
<snip>


>   So I will continue to refer to any proposal that has no external
> contracting authority and relies entirely on ICANN bylaw modifications as
> an internal-to-ICANN solution. Because I value accuracy and clarity.
>

Please can you show me where it is written that we MUST create an external
contracting authority?

>
>
> You are advocating an internal solution.
>

and what is wrong about this Milton? i think calling it internal solution
but not recognising that the solution intends to have strong accountability
is concerning.


>
> One of the arguments that I think underpins this effort is the perceived
> vulnerability of any entirely new, unfunded and unstaffed architecture that
> would in many ways resemble the vulnerability of the early ICANN.
>
>
>
> I have trouble understanding this concern. ICANN entered an almost
> entirely uninstitutionalized environment in 1997, and was at the center of
> a huge dispute between Network Solutions (which vastly exceeded ICANN in
> resources at the time), a rather weak and poor ISOC, and the Department of
> Commerce.
>
Now we have a very well-solidified transnational policy network formed
> around ICANN, ICANN is accepted as the policy authority for DNS, and there
> are much more well-defined relationships with IETF/IAB, registries,
> international organizations, user groups, and so on.
>

Wow! now i understand your motive which seem to be that you indeed want to
create another ICANN-like body perhaps for the fun of it otherwise i will
like you to tell me what is the difference between the current
multistakeholder community within ICANN and the one you will be proposing.

The biggest danger now is that ICANN itself might dominate or overwhelm any
> new entity and become locked in and unaccountable.
>

Sorry i am not sure i get your point, we recognise that accountability is
not yet strong within ICANN and that is what we are trying to work on but
you seem to be of the opinion that subjecting a already mature organisation
(both in community and reach) to a new organisation that will be setup is
the ONLY way that ensures ICANN's accountability. Perhaps you care to
clarify the scenario of what new entity ICANN will dominate

Regards

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141218/258ac586/attachment.html>