[MemberPubPol] [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[Fred Baker]

On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Veni Markovski wrote:
> government should be part of the solution. No government alone can be 
> a solution to such a complex issue, which includes so many players. 
> However, we must not exclude governments based on the asumption that 
> there's no need to fix something, which ain't broken. Some kind of new 
> structure will be created - whether it's going to be an UN agency, 
> task force, forum, union, conference, etc. is not important. What is 
> important is that there are serious (new) players on the ground, which 
> need to be taken into consideration - but into a real one, not the 
> ones that you are used to within ISOC:)

This discussion seems to manage to convince itself of some things 
without doing the fundamental conceptual ground work, without actually 
answering the questions on the table, and without actually answering 
the questions being raised.

Let me remind you of the statement of mine that opened this discussion:

On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> If the right thing to do is to make ICANN a treaty organization or 
> move its functions to one, then I'm willing to support that. I have to 
> say that the argument for doing so needs to be laid out pretty 
> clearly, as the current treaty organizations haven't been inspiring. 
> But I'm willing for someone to make the case. The argument "we're from 
> government, so we're obviously the right people for the job" doesn't 
> work. I need an argument that points out issues with the current 
> structure - ICANN, RIRs, registrars and registries, etc etc etc and 
> demonstrates that none of those problems would have happened if ICANN 
> had been a treaty organization and no new problems would have 
> materialized, or that there was a way to definitively handle new 
> problems that might arise.

Which of the many emails that have been exchanged addresses this 
question? Will you do so now?

> When we discuss such delicate matters, we must not forget, that the 
> Internet didn't start with ISOC, and it will continue to exist long 
> time after ISOC, because if ISOC doesn't change it might as well 
> disappear with time.

Can you make a statement that is a little more substantive, please?