[ga] Successor agency. (was: Substance over rhetoric )

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 18:37 20/03/02 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

>Finally, I am not avoiding Esther's question, but I'm still not sure whether
>I want anything more to do with ICANN. David Farrar makes some compelling
>arguments for working towards a successor agency, and he is by no means a
>radical. Can anybody convince me one way or the other?

The struggle for representation of the governed (and the taxed) is going to 
be just as tough in the successor agency as it was in ICANN.
If not tougher.
The same players will be there.

We flocked to ICANN (then NewCo) because of its initial Bylaws that held 
out certain promises.  This it itself had been the result of a political 
struggle and concessions from both sides.
The formation of the DNSO with its "constituencies" has been a political 
struggle. Brute power decided the outcome and the "Paris Draft" concept lost.

Do you have any illusion that brute financial and lobbying power is not 
going to define the structures of a successor agency?



--Joop

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html