Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers
Here is where I must respectfully disagree. We want the same outcome but we
have differing views on how to reach it. We both agree that at this time ICANN
is making public policy decisions. We both agree that in its' current makeup it
should not be doing so. What to do about it is where we diverge.
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> I agree. ICANN has crept its mission well beyond its proper roles.
> ICANN is not a consumer protection body. Yes, ICANN has lifted the lid on
> that Pandora's box and look at the mess that it has created as a result.
Agreed. But now it may not just walk away from that box. They are the ones who
opened it. When the problems are your fault you have an obligation to try and
> ICANN needs to slam the lid back down, start doing what it ought to have
> been doing all along - technical coordination - and leave the issues of
> public policy to the bodies that were created for that purpose.
Big problem here. What bodies were created for that purpose. Clearly they must
be international in scope and be open and transparent and bottom up. Please
point me to those bodies.
> This is why there is such a gulf between the few paragraphs that I
> published as to ICANN's duties and what ICANN's staff published as it's
> telephone-book sized book of jobs it does.
Creep yes, but you can only creep into a void.
> Yes, it will be a mess to clean up the mess that ICANN has already
> created. But let's not make it any worse by adding even more jobs for
> ICANN to do poorly.
Agreed, no new jobs. But abandoning what it has already so greatly effected
would be irresponsible.
The only choices are repair or replace. (or maybe a little of both)
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html