ICANN is seeking public comment about changing the bylaws to allow each GNSO constituency three representatives instead of two. The reduction in the size of the GSNO Council was one of the few reform recommendations that I agreed with, and I still think it would make the Council more capable of working effectively and reaching consensus. But...it's hard to debate the point when every single member of the Council wants to retain the status quo.
The status of Afrinic looks like it will be on the calendar for Mar del Plata.
ICANN held a Special (aka "Secret") Board meeting yesterday. The agenda included:
- Update on sTLD Applications and .NET successor registry process
- Review of .TEL (Telnic) sTLD application
- Delegation of .EU and EURid-ICANN Agreement
- Directors' Expense Reimbursements
- Designation of Academic Representative to the 2005 Nominating Committee
- Other Business
I wonder what this says.
The Mar del Plata agenda is being frequently updated. Looks like a very busy week.
This Op-Ed is one reason not to put the DNS and IP address assignment under the umbrella of governments: "...the Federal Government should also lobby for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers organisation to be moved under the UN umbrella. ...Once a part of the UN, ICANN can be given the power to block IP addresses that host web sites that display child pornography." Even assuming ICANN had the power he thinks it has, it wouldn't stop with child pornography. What else would he give ICANN the power to take down?
