Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Bill, we have here a classic boundary problem. There are a number of other
> entities that are taking on the access issues. One of those that I belong to
> is the ISOC (www.isoc.org). Also, the ICANN is supposed to be a technical
> coordination body.

Don't think so. What you term a "social service" is in fact the core
requirement of the MoU: technical coordination of the Internet for
the public good.  To limit the "public" to those already neatly connected
constitutes mission abandonment: the "public" is taken, in ICANN terms,
to mean only those who already have the technology to be connected,
whereas it is highly doubtful that that is what the USG meant. To get
people connected is to string wires or the like and then get those wires
to work together, and that is fundamentally a technical problem.

> What you advocate here would constitute mission-creep,
> because it falls in the realm of social services. Firstly, I don't think
> that ICANN can even do it. That's not the core business. Secondly, the
> resources aren't there. Thirdly, it's not our call to make.
>
> BTW, HTML mail is a bear to format a reply to.

I know.  I hate little blue lines. But when that's what one gets, what
is one to do? (I've tried sending replies as text only, but once one
starts in HTML, distinctions as to who wrote what can again get
lost.  But I'll send this text and see again what happens.)

Bill


--
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