Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, July 09, 2014 12:16 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> Were this not an IAB list (so we don't really have a reason to
> discuss the names-IANA issue), I'd suggest that ICANN should
> repurpose its microsite to facilitate the discussion in the
> names community.

(above corrected)

It would still be inappropriate for it to require adherence to
ICANN policies --notably preservation of ICANN assets and giving
priority to ICANN's best interests-- by the users or in
discussions on that site.

At a very high level, I think that is one of the key issues in
the discussion.  From my point of view, the criteria for a
successful conclusion is one that best serves the long-term
interests of the Internet and its users (I hope those are the
same).  

Various people among ICANN leadership and staff seem to keep
slipping into assertions about ICANN's own best interests
("assets" included).  If that is just a slip or an unintentional
application of an inappropriately-general rule, I think it is
worth correcting because it is by no means proven that what is
good for ICANN is good for the Internet.  If it is more than
that, then, IMO, it is really important that we resist moves in
the direction of substituting "best interests of ICANN" for
"best interests of the Internet" as a criterion, must less a
constraint on discussions.

   john