Re: [ga] GA

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

You said:
"The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on them, and
once they self-organise get them round the table and in the new DNSO and
new GA."

I took this to mean that there is some debate about who the stakeholders
are.  If you meant "we all agree who the stakeholders are, so we should
set up appropriate structures for them", that would be different.  But
that's not at all what you said, or am I missing something?

Note that none of the existing NC constitutencies *really* self-organized
in that they were identified by ICANN ex ante.


On Fri, 31 May 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Michael Froomkin wrote:
> "It's obvious that at the  very least all domain name registrants are 'stakeholders' under even the most restrictive definition, since they are directly and personally effected by ICANN's decisions (e.g. the UDRP). That you still question this calls a great deal into doubt".  
> 
> Just exactly when did I question this ?  The essence of my posting was to ask if accommodating such stakeholders via an e-mail list called the GA could not be improved upon.
> 
> 
> Philip
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

--
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