[ga] ITU on ICANN; Dyson on ICANN, ITU

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Dear all,

James Love has send an "Internal ITU Draft for Discussion"
to the NCDNHC discussion list.

http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-April/001905.html
Excerpts:
"Thus, ITU-T is an excellent forum for discussing issues that are of 
concern to both the general public and key industry players. Consensus 
solutions developed within ITU-T tend to have support from both industry 
and bodies whose role is to protect the public interest. 
It is hard to see why the existing ITU-T working methods, in
cooperation with ICANN, would not serve the Internet naming and
address allocation systems as well as they serve the existing
naming and address allocation systems."

Meanwhile at ICANNwatch:
Esther Dyson has made some corrections about her talk at Wharton

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=667&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0#5505
Excerpts:
"Moreover, ICANN and its community (mostly) are trying very hard to 
limit their efforts to the *non*-political issues of the Net's technical 
infrastructure. It's inevitable that there is some overlap, but it need 
not be great. The fact that ICANN has very limited powers and is not a 
treaty organization helps to maintain that distinction, because ICANN 
simply has no authority to meddle in/decide the non-technical issues. 
Hence the big discussions about ICANN's supposed 'mission creep.' 
As long as ICANN keeps to its by-consensus, by-contract architecture, 
that mission creep is impossible. But the moment is became part of, say, 
the ITU (or remained with the USG), it *would* have such authority/powers 
and would inevitably be drawn into conflicts it should avoid." 

Best regards,
/// Alexander

--
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