Danny, I can only tell you my opinion, as there has not been any discussion on the Board on a change of strategy, and I am not aware of any imminent change of strategy. I believe that the final medium-long term objective is, for ICANN, to draw its legitimacy from the consensus of the stakeholders rather than from some contractual relationship with one (or more) government(s). This said, the constituencies are one, initial, mechanism, and the supporting organizations are, indeed, *the* mechanism by which policy is developed. But this is not at all the only mechanism by which there can be collaboration between ICANN and parts of the Internet community. So, if a university wants to participate in the PDP on Domain Name matters, indeed it should join the NCUC, or any appropriate GNSO constituency. But if it is more interested in collaboration in the discussion of themes of common interest, like for example cybersecurity, it is by and large irrelevant whether they are joining a constituency: the most appropriate tool is to have a common understanding on what the scope of the collaboration could be. So, an MoU would be appropriate. Now, we *must* keep well in mind the distinction. We cannot allow policy making via MoUs. In simple words, the fact that one University has an MoU with ICANN for collaboration on specific items, does not, IMHO, give any advantage (or even any voice) in the PDP. Pretty much in the same way some ccTLDs exchange letters with ICANN, but do not join the ccNSO: they will be part of the wide internet community, they show collaboration with ICANN, but they do not participate in the PDP. For completeness of information, it is also fair to notice that ICANN provides services to the ccTLDs, and is engaged in the provision of these services on a non-discriminatory basis, which means that IANA does not make the distinction between ccNSO members and other in managing changes to the root. So, in summary, my opinion is that the reality is complex enough to warrant more than one way to collaborate. The important thing would be to keep clear in mind that different tools give different types of relationship, and at the end of the day different obligations and rights. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2008 02:14 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] IISI Competes with the EURALO
Roberto,
It's a good thing that is being done here. I noted from the January Board minutes that MOUs signed to date include CITEL and UNESQA, and there are others being considered. The Global Partnerships team is to be commended for their efforts to facilitate outreach and collaboration.
With that said, it appears that ICANN is pursuing a new model, a model in which engagement with key entities is accomplished by way of MOU arrangements. At issue is why ICANN has chosen not to bring these entities into the fold by way of the constructs already established.
One would think that a University would find a natural home in the NCUC. Instead, we have a separate MOU arrangement. Not that I'm complaining; I actually think its a valid approach that serves to enhance the appearance of ICANN legitimacy.
But it does raise the question of what this might portend for those organizations still ensconced in models that are under review. Doubtless they will be asking if their needs may better be served by forging direct MOU arrangements instead of working in the aggregate (such as within a RALO).
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny:
One wonders how much of the At-Large budget will
be set aside
for IISI activities... Just guessing, but I suppose that neither Paul Twomey nor Veni Markovski recommended to the IISI that they join the EURALO.
If I were you, I would not bet hard money on it. FYI, I have been in Moscow the previous week, as Vice-Chair of the Board, to talk about potential collaboration. And, yes, I spoke about the at large, insisting on the fact that we (ICANN) need to have the voice of the users from everywhere, but in particular from the areas that are less represented (in geographical, or cultural, or whatever else terms). Veni was there, in the same roundtable, and in the same meetings, and supported very much the idea of a higher engagement of the Russian community in ICANN, including AtLarge. And was much more successful than myself, also because of his deep knowledge of the Eastern European world, in explaining the win-win situation of a larger collaboration between the Russian internet community and ICANN.
Things are moving, in case somebody hadn't noticed, or pretends not to notice.
Regards, Roberto
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com