DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] [fwd] [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope (from: philip.sheppard@aim.be)

  • To: ga@dnso.org
  • Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope (from: philip.sheppard@aim.be)
  • From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:31:28 +0100
  • Mail-Followup-To: ga@dnso.org
  • Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
  • User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0i

For your information.  Philip's message with the full draft 
conclusions should be available from the Names Council List's web 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Cc: "NC (list)" <council@dnso.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:30:15 +0100
Subject: Re: [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope
Mail-Followup-To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>,
	"NC (list)" <council@dnso.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0i

On 2002-03-28 14:33:13 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>The Names Council felt that the greatest danger of mission creep 
>lay in the areas of security, consumer protection and the creation 
>of infrastructure for at-large membership.

I object against mixing draft conclusions which specifically address 
ICANN's mission with remarks on one particular model for public 
participation with ICANN.

The risks and benefits of an at large membership can (and should) be 
discussed and addressed when the names council considers mechanisms 
for the selection of board members, and for structuring public 
input. In such a discussion (to which I'm looking forward), an 
at-large membership should be considered together with alternative 
options, such as the Lynn proposal's idea of governmental 
involvement with the nomination of board members (which would, most 
likely, also have a large impact on possible mission creep).

Please remove the words "and the creation of infrastructure for 
at-large membership" from the draft conclusions.

>Recommendation 2. ICANN's mission should not be extended beyond 
>that outlined in the note "What ICANN Does" .

Kind regards,
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

----- End forwarded message -----
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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>