|
I think the GNSO Council did well, in challenging the ICANN Board over its
13th October pronouncement that the next sTLDs were to be shelved.
The resolution the GNSO Council hammered out in Carthage was needed and
constructive, and I find it encouraging that the ICANN Board did a U-turn
afterwards and re-instated the proposed introduction of more sTLDs.
Of greater long-term significance is the evolution of a programme and
process to introduce many more gTLDs, and to have that process ready by the end
of 2004. The language of the Board seemed to indicate that they were now finally
getting ready to open the doors to significant additional gTLDs. And that this
will occur not in 'rounds' of TLD selection, but as and when a potential
registry seeks to apply. There will be criteria, and if the registry satisfies
the criteria, then it will operate.
Clearly the coming consultations and work are important to define the
process by which this will take place, and the GNSO has a central role in this.
Maybe I am being over-optimistic, but I picked up the sense that a hard-pressed
Paul Twomey and ICANN were finally wanting to really involve their
constituencies in a more bottom-up process.
If ICANN wants people from all constituencies to pull together and 'start a
new phase' of co-operation, then it needs to 'take the risk' of trusting a
little more, and embracing openness and greater responsiveness.
A further big step forward would be for ICANN to recognise the significant
credibility *and support* it could gain by 'individualising' ALAC - in other
words by actively promoting the principle of one-person-one-vote in all its
RALOs, and thereby starting to attract the significant numbers of At Large
participants who could make a useful and informed contribution to ICANN's
processes, while adding to its legitimacy.
If the ALAC and its RALOs were to be developed along a democratic model
(rather than an organisation-based model); and if ICANN recognised the
significance of the Internet Users by restoring (say) 2 At Large representatives
to the Board (elected from verified individual members of each RALO or by
democratically elected delegates); then it would be possible to see an At Large
constituency which was more than just the present role-play, and indeed capable
of supporting ICANN's processes and work. A much larger number of people would
think it was worth joining and participating.
The ICANN Board started to give some ground at Carthage and even (horror!
shock!) showed signs of listening and looking for help from others. Paul Twomey
showed intelligence and ability in his deliveries and presentations. If ICANN
could only build on this trust, and truly embrace bottom-up principles, then we
could (against expectations) be entering a phase of co-operation and
legitimacy.
That *has* to be the sensible and only way to proceed.
At present, that has all to be proved. But I thought the GNSO Council did
well in helping to get the sTLD decision reversed.
Thanks!
...
Richard Henderson
|