Re: [ga] Tr: Re: NCtelecon, 18 April 2000, results

[Raul Echeberria <raul@inia.org.uy>]

At 23:29 23/04/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>FYI (and possibly discussion)
>
>Roberto
>


I liked it.





>X-GMDelimiter: 31979565251548683
>Received: from 212.183.90.143 by voila.fr with HTTP; Sun, 23 Apr 2000
23:25:54 +0100
>From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>
>Reply-To: roberto.gaetano@voila.fr
>Message-Id: <20000423232554@minitel.net>
>To: <DNSO.Listadmin@dnso.org>
>Cc: <council@dnso.org>
>Errors-To: roberto.gaetano@voila.fr
>Subject: Re: NCtelecon, 18 April 2000, results
>X-MinitelNet: LU
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Elisabeth,
>
>Thank you for your quick and clear answer.
>>
>>I was confirmed that the third meaning is the correct one.
>>This of course relates to Art. VI-B, Section 2(d), of the ICANN bylaws,
>
>>which gives the NC the responsibilty to determine "community 
>consensus."
>>
>
>I have, of course, no objection an the fact that NC has the ultimate 
>responsibility in determining "community consensus", even if, in the 
>particular instance, I cannot avoid to note that this perception of the 
>"community consensus" differs for elected members of different 
>constituencies.
>Thus the basic question. If the NC reps are elected by, and answerable 
>to, different constituencies, is it reasonable that they take decisions 
>related not to the appreciation of the needs of their respective 
>constituencies, but to a estimate (on which basis, BTW?) of the 
>"Internet Community"? I do not think that it is appropriate that 
>representative that have been elected with the mission of making the 
>interests of their respective constituency shall be responsible to 
>answer such questions "at large".
>
>I personally do not know whether the consensus reached in WG-C can be 
>considered as a consensus for the "at large" Internet Community, but it 
>sure looks to me the best possible compromise given the not easily 
>compromiseable competing interests in the Internet Community.
>This can easily be tested.
>I invite the NC in the next session to to answer the question:
>"Do you think that there is consensus in delegating *less than* 6-10 
>gTLDs".
>What I would like to make clear is that, if there's no consensus 
>(according to the NC perception) for 6-10, ICANN should not think that 
>it is appropriate to endorse less.
>
>Also, I personally think that the NC vote on 2000-04-18 has also pre-
>empted any possible result from WG-B to be meaningful.
>Obviously, a similar question should be asked for the "sunrise" 
>provision:
>"Is there consensus in the Internet Community that special rights (aka 
>"sunrise provision", aka "jus primae noctis" - for the French speaking 
>"droit de cuissage") should be given to *all* Trademark owners?"
>
>I would be very much surprised if anybody could honestly claim that such
> consesus exists.
>
>Regards
>Roberto Gaetano
>
>


Raul Echeberria
raul@inia.org.uy

--
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