<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">"</font>Sorry you asked?" (Evan
Leibovitch)</p>
<p>Quite the contrary... I am absolutely delighted.... This is an
excellent set of initial , foundational principles, and I give my
whole-heated support to them. <br>
</p>
<p>Not only that, I am happy to explore working with you, as IT for
Change and for the global coalition Just Net Coalition to develop
them further and do fining-tune, polishing, detailing, etc,
through an international working group made from both the digital
activist field and global NGOs and movements in different sectors
from across the world. And following development of a common set
of principles, take side global sign ons from public interest
groups from all over the world. I assure you that we would get
imagined support and endorsements. <br>
</p>
<p>In fact I invite you to be the convenor of this group ... I am
happy to also explore some basic funding for this project, from,
transparent bonafide public interest funders, mostly like some
western foundation or something ... And we can start almost right
now ... What do you say ... <br>
</p>
<p>best, parminder <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/01/22 9:56 pm, Evan Leibovitch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMguqh04EthTOW83-VCgguSpG1B+N=N2ZW2zRFNYhKtserZSvw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 at 04:30, parminder via At-Large <<a
href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>>
wrote: <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Evan, since I like to look forward, that also makes me
ask you -- what would be your conception of a publicly
accountable ICANN.. No, i dont need the full
architecture... Just what was missing and what should
be, at a larger framework level . But it is fine if you
havent thought about it yet in that way.. . thanks,
parminder<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default">Getting further off-topic, but now
entertaining. Like Olivier, I enjoyed Barry's Usenet history
and was brought back to days of Telebit modems, UUCP, and
the nightly news dump. I myself ran some of those newsgroup
elections, and was an occasional colleague of one of those
demi-gods, Henry Spencer from the University of Toronto. I
recall things being more structured than Barry did, thanks
to the loose assembly of demigods known as <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_cabal"
moz-do-not-send="true">the "Cabal"</a>.</div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default">But... back to Parminder's question.
Bashing is easy, constructive solutions are always far
tougher. I don't have a coherent and complete architecture,
but there are a few principles I would like in a
re-envisioned domain manager/regulator. I really can't
separate these into "accountability" and "non
accountability" measures since there's at least some A&T
rationale baked into all of them:<br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default">
<ul>
<li>Fuller (ie, complete) separation of ICANN's technical
and political roles. That means that issues such as
root-server coordination and security are better handled
by groups like IETF<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>A governance model such that the public interest
comprises the decision-makers and the industry players
are advisors. This of course represents a 180-degree
swap of the current situation in ICANN but is more in
line with normal governance elsewhere.<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>A "use it or lose it" regime for domains similar to
what exists for trademarks, complete with aggressive
anti-squatting policy (OK, maybe this one doesn't have
much to do with A&T but it's critical)<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>The price governments pay for a seat at this table is
making domain use and allocation subject to a treaty
that ensures interoperability and heavily constrains
domain takedowns. That would avoid bullshit such as the
"Universal Acceptance" initiative, which was created to
beg the world to honour ICANN's policies because right
now everything is taken in (diminishing) good faith. A
treaty would also eliminate ICANN's coy "we're not a
regulator" whining and enable credible enforcement.<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>Creation of a financial model such that the org that
regulates domain names isn't dependent on their volume
or rental fees for its sustainability<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>And finally, a Nominating Committee that actually <b>nominates</b>.
That is, it creates a slate of names for consideration
by electors rather than choosing the winners itself. I
like the CIRA dual-slate model that allows for a
Nomination Committee slate while enabling a second slate
of "nominations from the floor" for people who are
popular but shunned by the NomCom.<br>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default">Sorry you asked?</div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default">- Evan<br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>