Re: [ga] 305 Voters

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Ladi wrote:

> My personal general feeling is that technical issues simply cannot exist
> in isolation from policy issues. Trying to divide them cleanly is
> useless as one side will always need to understand the other at least on
> a basic level, unless we just want to degenerate into two groups
> pointing fingers at each other and never getting anything done. I point
> to the current email as a file transfer method issue occupying NANOG as
> my most recent example.
>
> By the same token, are "non-ICANN issues" really that far from "ICANN
> issues"? Not to start a new debate, but perhaps a form of the digital
> divide is why some people can effectively put up a fight against UDRP
> and others don't even bother.

Ladi:

That is absolutely true, from my experience. They "don't bother" fighting
reverse domain name hijacking because they don't have the money.
Veronica's parents succeeded by other clever means; they mounted such
a public relations blitz on the net that made Archie Comics look so bad
that, last I heard, Archie folded on the basic bit (maybe bought the name,
I don't know). But the UDRP is a domain name issue, into which ICANN
has stuck its nose, and we're now stuck with it. It truly has both technical

and "social" aspects, and when I (and others) say that ICANN should
stick to technical matters I think that should be read to mean "should
have."
That horse is already out of the barn, and DNSO/GA-ICANN has to
deal with it one way or the other. My point of view has been and will be
to get ICANN out of the UDRP fiasco.


> Perhaps a more unified approach is in
> order...

Not exactly following here.

> And as a history major, I need to plug my own discipline (and my
> thesis): past models are also worth examining. Without thinking too
> hard, I would hazard a guess that the creation and professionalization
> of the scientific community is worth a look.

Speaking as a scientist for the moment, how could I say other than,
"why, of course?" :-)

Bill

>
> ~Ladi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:48 PM
> To: 'William S. Lovell'
> Cc: ga@DNSO.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters
>
> I've been thinking that some of what "we" want to talk about really
> doesn't belong at ICANN at all, but that there a lots of interesting,
> bright, and involved people who are interested in ICANN, but really want
> to also debate, or socialize ideas bout non-ICANN areas.... digital
> divide; privacy on the net in general, security of
> applications/communications, etc.
>
> I think, like William, that there may be some models which we could look
> at. I am not holding up any examples, since I am searching. Your ASCAP
> and BMI examples are interesting ones. Some might suggest ISOC; others
> might suggest some of the other more technically oriented ... groups...
> but the point is that we should see if we can learn from any of them ,
> and from the other SOs about what might work...
>
> Thanks, William, I enjoyed reading your post, and it made me think
> more...
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:43 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: ga@DNSO.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters
>
> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
>
> > William, might it also be that many users of the Internet think that
> > it
> just
> > works, and they are busy running their personal lives, and their
> businesses,
> > and they want to take Internet operations for granted?
>
> Marilyn:
>
> That's really it in a nutshell. Also, the GA attempts to do stuff in the
> wrong place. The problem is that the GA is supposed to be a technical
> advisory body on domain name issues, where technical expertise is indeed
> necessary, but the GA more often falls into the process of carrying out
> what the "at-large" group would do, if there were such a thing. The
> attempts by Younger and Corliss to get things focussed on the actual
> "charter" of the GA by way of the mailing lists, instead of being a
> place to vent every gripe known (along with beating up the other guy,
> etc.), creates yet another thing to gripe about, and the real business
> gets lost.
>
> > For instance, I often speak to busienesses through trade associations
> about
> > ICANN. Most of the executives and managers whom I brief usually say:
> > glad you are paying attention; think that our association staff
> > should. Now, I have to get back to work. Give an update in about 3-4
> > months, won't you?
> >
> > I'm struggling to think about other organizations and how they have
> > developed "representative democracy".  I think it deserves some more
> > thoughtfulness.
>
> I gave the examples some time back of two organizations that are run
> quite professionally and serve their own special public very well. One
> of these is the National Writers Union (free lance writers) and ASCAP
> (songwriters)
> -- for which there is another one -- BMI.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> 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

--
         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm


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