RE: [ga] GA

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Michael, as one of the people who helped to organize the BC, I 
don't share your memories of the "early days" at all and wonder 
why you have such a different view than I do...--  or memory, might
be a better term, to use in this instance.

During the IFWP, and by working together, the community identified different constitueny 
groups/categories.  Many of us who worked during the IFWP have
a different recollection than your message conveyed... or so, I suspect...

As I recall,after helping to develop
a framework for the DNSO, different individuals then went on to
self organize into the constituencies... or some of them... 

I would think that the ccTLDs certainly think that they 'organized' into 
their constituency. I know the BC did; I think that Antonio Harris might
comment on the ISPCP... ditto for the IPC.... 

I am surprised that is forgotten.. ... I still remember THAT
endless round of calls, emails, drafting, etc.


Regards,

Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:38 AM
To: Philip Sheppard
Cc: GA List
Subject: Re: [ga] GA 



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@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

--
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