Re: [ga] remote participation

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Michael,

On 16:30 18/02/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
>I respectfully disagree.  An even larger problem is that repeat f2f
>players -- those who are paid to attend sessions as lobbyists, primarily
>-- have a huge edge.

This is true. But you will not prevent f2f meetings to occurr everywhere,
at some other occasions, and mostly in the USA. So at least the
ICANN meetings are in the open. What I object is the 3 months delay.
Too short. Twice a year together with an Internet show would be better
and give more reasons to spend traveling money.

Obviously another solution is to rebuild the iCANN as it should be, ie
the association of the TLDs incorporated in Tuvalu with no more than
two people in the BoD from the same country with 9 Directors from
netwide support interests (SO) and 9 directors from stakeholders
(@large: 5 from the field, 4 from specialized industry/concerns). Final
decision by the GA, ie every TLDs (g/cc/alt). Willing or not IMHO this
is what will happen anyway. In one year or in ten years, in war or in
peace, this is the only question.

By then there will be probably no more floor, only qulified world. So
your solution will prevail. Today I feel it a little premature if exclusive.
All the best.

Jefsey


--
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