RE: [ga] GA

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I am not saying that once the constituencies were fixed - or even before
they were official - some people didn't self organize them to determine
their membership. As you note in many cases they did indeed.  But what I'm
saying this that fix was in for *what the constituencies would be* and
that is what *motivated* those efforts (and is why to this day we don't
have an individual domain name holders' group, an academic group, a small
business group, etc.). 

As I recall it, the IFWP vision was vastly differnent from what we in fact
got from the WITSA-INTA-ITAA-gTLD-Mou POC alliance (I'm doing this without
notes, so apologies if I missed out a group or added one that didn't
belong) which substantially produced the DNSO we have.

I don't know why you felt a need to add all the cc's.  Ordinarily I'd trim
them, but I've left them this time. 

On Fri, 31 May 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 
> Michael, as one of the people who helped to organize the BC, I 
> don't share your memories of the "early days" at all and wonder 
> why you have such a different view than I do...--  or memory, might
> be a better term, to use in this instance.
> 
> During the IFWP, and by working together, the community identified different constitueny 
> groups/categories.  Many of us who worked during the IFWP have
> a different recollection than your message conveyed... or so, I suspect...
> 
> As I recall,after helping to develop
> a framework for the DNSO, different individuals then went on to
> self organize into the constituencies... or some of them... 
> 
> I would think that the ccTLDs certainly think that they 'organized' into 
> their constituency. I know the BC did; I think that Antonio Harris might
> comment on the ISPCP... ditto for the IPC.... 
> 
> I am surprised that is forgotten.. ... I still remember THAT
> endless round of calls, emails, drafting, etc.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:38 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: GA List
> Subject: Re: [ga] GA 
> 
> 
> 
> You said:
> "The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on them, and
> once they self-organise get them round the table and in the new DNSO and
> new GA."
> 
> I took this to mean that there is some debate about who the stakeholders
> are.  If you meant "we all agree who the stakeholders are, so we should
> set up appropriate structures for them", that would be different.  But
> that's not at all what you said, or am I missing something?
> 
> Note that none of the existing NC constitutencies *really* self-organized
> in that they were identified by ICANN ex ante.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> > Michael Froomkin wrote:
> > "It's obvious that at the  very least all domain name registrants are 'stakeholders' under even the most restrictive definition, since they are directly and personally effected by ICANN's decisions (e.g. the UDRP). That you still question this calls a great deal into doubt".  
> > 
> > Just exactly when did I question this ?  The essence of my posting was to ask if accommodating such stakeholders via an e-mail list called the GA could not be improved upon.
> > 
> > 
> > Philip
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

--
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