Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 27 Aug 2001, at 5:22, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Please do not fall prey to *it is not our call to make*.
> 
> While I am quite young, I seem to remember history tells us of a time
> when book burning and the rounding up of certain undesirables in Nazi
> Germany was none of our business.  If all ICANN is, is a technical
> coordination body then we are all wasting our time.  *Social* means
> society is using your internet - when they stop you will have nothing
> to coordinate.  I understand some of you are uncomfortable with it but
> in fact social is our most important function!

The point is, I think, Erik, that ICANN should not be making ANY 
social policy at all.  It's the mission creep that will end up 
strangling the use of the net.  We shold not look to expand the 
mission.  We should look to limiting the mission to technical 
aspects only.

Leah
> 
> Eric
> 
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
> 
> I should also add that, as you have yourself frequently indicated,
> 
> > there really is <em> nothing </em> that it is "our call to make."
> > I'm also an ISOC member, but that others are working on the matter
> > is no excuse for ICANN not to be.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > 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. 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.
> 


--
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