Re: [ga] Motion # 1

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

roessler@does-not-exist.org (Fri 05/10/02 at 11:19 PM +0200):

> >if you notice a spike in interest in the GA, it may because the
> >GA is finally doing something interesting.
> 
> Instead of focusing on such boring things as deleted domain name 
> handling  (and domain hoarding), the WLS proposal, whois bulk access? 
> As opposed to doing its job and actually trying to channel public input 
> on domain name policy into the ICANN process?

ICANN is not a process, and its trajectory from its inception to
the current situation has made a mockery of process within ICANN.
nevertheless, it relies very heavily on a nebula of dog-and-pony 
shows to shroud its actions. this rebid vote is a rare chance to 
make a clear statement from 'within' ICANN that the *fundamental*
transformation it intends to pass off as supported by 'consensus' 
is not in fact supported by consensus. that is, imo, far more im-
portant than the issues you mention above. but that claim is NOT 
tantamount to dismissing the importance of those issues.

> Quite frankly, if such topics are too uninteresting even for the part of 
> the public which claims to follow ICANN issues, there is no reason at 
> all for that public to participate in ICANN policy-making. I still 
> refuse to believe that.

if people don't follow your lead there's no reason for public in-
put? it might be more accurate to say that if people *do* follow
your lead there will be no opportunity for public input. 

cheers,
t
--
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