Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] teleconference / discussion fodder (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 19:16 1/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>I'd suggest that, before you start discussing individual policy
>development mechanisms, you come to some agreement on what kind of
>ICANN you are talking about.

That is a sensible suggestion to the NC members.
But even if followed, the problem that I can see is that an agreement (a 
majority vote?) among the members of the NC on the kind of ICANN that they 
want to see emerge from the reform process, still does not bind the 
internet community, least of all the registrants, who are largely excluded 
from this NC.
Before all else, and before deciding on how to measure "some agreement" the 
Names Council should start to examine its own representativity.
Perhaps it will conclude that under the current circumstances only a 
unanimous vote will do.


--Joop

--
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