Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 07:59:46PM -0400, James Love wrote:
> > Kent, your comment was pretty unfair, IMO.
>
> Thanks for sharing that with me.
>
> > The problem is the other way
> > around. ICANN itself has set out an agenda which is much more than
> > technical. Why do we have a handful of TLDs?  Technical problems?  Why
> > do we have a UDRP?  Technical issues?   Why do we have anti-privacy
> > policies?  Technical issues?
>
> Sorry, it is purely nonsense to claim that ICANN is setting this agenda.
> Essentially everything significant about ICANN's agenda was set before
> ICANN was established, and ICANN has been held to that agenda fairly
> tightly.

ICANN has chosen to address or ignore it's "agenda" at will. One of the
most important things that the interim board of ICANN was to have
accomplished was the seating of a properly-elected board, a job which
still remains unfinished.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

--
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