Re: [ga] NC BS

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@worldatlarge.org>]

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Thomas's analysis of the recent NC recommendations is I believe overly 
> pessimistic.
>
> The logic behind the recommendations is as follows:
>
>  
>
> 1. Identify the stakeholders who should participate in ICANN policy 
> development.
>
In other words, only the existing constituencies SHOULD participate in 
ICANN Policy Development, and the rest of the world can go hang itself 
because the same NC which recommends this setup is also the single 
greatest obstacle to any more consituencies being introduced into the 
DNSO.  Am I understanding you correctly, Philip?

> 2. Factor those stakeholders into a policy development body.
>
> 3. Have a consultation mechanism for the rest of the world.
>
>  
>
> So, if we consider consumer/individual user/registrants as 
> stakeholders who should participate, let them do so.
>
> But let's not dismiss these principles based on the failure of the 
> status quo or questions about the administration of e-mail lists.
>
> Philip
>
Question:  If the consumer/individual user/registrants wish to 
participate as stakeholders but have no place in the existing 
constituency structure, how would they participate exactly?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos


--
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