Re: [ga] Democracy vs. Public Input - What is the process?
Leah and all assembly members,
L Gallegos wrote:
> If ICANN did not delve into the social and political aspects of the
> domain name issues, then those issues would be beyond the
> scope of the GA.
I agree entirely with this argument or statement. I don't however believe
that the ICANN BOD and Staff should have delved into these issues
from a policy point of view in most if not all instances. ICANN's mandate
is a technical one not one that should be delving into social engineering
considerations. Yet is seems plainly evident that the social aspects
are the ICANN BoD's and staff primary issues of interest, and that
they are not capable yet of handling the technical issues very well.
> However, ICANN has not only delved into these
> areas, they have become a focus.
Yes, and this is a terrible mistake. The ICANN BoD and staff are ill
equipped nor were they well prepared to focus on these areas as we
are all having to suffer the results of.
> Therefore, it is very much within
> the scope of the DNSO GA to discuss and recommend to ICANN
> on them.
Unfortunately this is not only true, but a must do situation.
> Policy regarding the consequences of duplicating TLDs
> in the USG root, the effects of the UDRP on domain name holders,
> and any other policies that effect stakeholders are very much the
> reason for the existence of the DNSO. If the GA is to ignore these
> issues and stay within the mandate of the technical aspects, then
> ICANN must do the same, as ICANN is the parent of this
Agreed. But it is now too late for going backwards form a ICANN
perspective. It's sink or swim...
> Bottom-up anyone?
> On 22 Jun 2001, at 9:49, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > I think the UDRP and Privacy issues are germain to Damain Names and their
> > registration.
> > I think that many do not like to have to deal with social and political issues,
> > just as many do not like to deal with sophisticated technical issues.
> > But I am having trouble here understanding your postion, how do we address the
> > ccTLDs being an SO and or WIPO's overbearing approach to IP if we do not
> > include social and political concerns.
> > I could be wrong but as understand the terms policy and governance they require
> > these types of concerns. Certainly the idea of consensus is sociological at
> > it's finest.
> > It would seem that this comment is really meant for the other SOs. I await
> > your enlightenment because I know your premise is well founded.
> > Eric
> > >
> > > In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and
> > > pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names
> > > issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine,
> > > let's continue, we are on the right track!
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Roberto
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> > Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 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
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
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