Re: ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 31 May 2002 12:53:44 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<ploki_xyz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Incidentally, supposing that USG rebids the contract, what will be the GA 
>position? To hope that they get a better candidate, or to try to lay down 
>criteria for choice? And in this second case, how does this differ from 
>applying these criteria to reform ICANN?

Generally I have favoured trying to reform a body rather than try to
set up a replacement one because as you say there is usually no
guarantee a replacement will be better.  During a period when ISOCNZ's
management of .nz was very controversial some advocated trying to get
,nz re-delegated but I was against this as a successor could turn out
to be no different to the original.

However a key difference is that ISOCNZ, like most bodies, allowed
people to join and vote to change it to what they thought it should be
doing.  The internet community has no power at all to change ICANN and
in fact one can argue that the incumbent board and staff of ICANN have
created such a hostile culture that for once it would be far
preferable to set up a new organisation from scratch than try to
reform ICANN.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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