Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 08:14 AM 4/2/2001, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 09:37:52AM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > >Here, though, the negotiated deal violates policy by scrapping the
> > separation
> > >of registry and registrar.
> >1) There is no such policy.
> > >I do not think board and staff have the authority
> > >to do that without DNSO approval.
> >In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
> >without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of the
> >Internet. This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws.
> These two items demonstrate the pervasive tendency to debate about
> theoretical issues that have no factual basis in ICANN legal documents.
> As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the
> responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated about
> the relevant fact, not theory.
Generally speaking, your two last comments here are not only misguided but
Policy is about theory. The only factual basis that comes from "legal
documents" (I suppose you mean this as documents which are not illegal) is the
fact that the document exists. A document does not create a fact.
As people claim to be serious participants, they should be made aware that
just because an oldtimer says something does not make it so. The GA needs to
be more interested in what interested participants have to say and less on
historical facts which impede progress. The GA is not to be dominated by,
technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or lobbyists. It is a General
Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html