Re: ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

t byfield wrote:
>
>how would developing criteria differ from applying them to a 'reformed'
>ICANN? well, let me ask you what a 'reformed' ICANN would mean. my own
>feeling is that for 'reformed' to have any practical meaning, at least
>the following criteria would need to be applied:
>
>      - it could not employ anyone currently employed by ICANN
>      - its board could not include any member of ICANN's 'initial'
>        or 'interim' board
>      - it could not be legally represented by JDRP
>

Funny that you focus only on *who* and not *what*.
Well, than if somebody (Bin Laden?) will make a bid for NewCo against Vint 
Cerf, according to your criteria it should be preferred.

>
>therefore, i would suggest that discussions of how to reform the unre-
>formable is a waste of time. it would make much more sense to discuss
>criteria for a new organization -- and not least because we've already
>had these conversations, in the form of the IFWP. looking back on those
>records with the benefit of subsequent experience seems like a good way
>to proceed. in particular, it opens up the possibility of articulating
>positive goals rather than dwelling on past negations.

Ever heard about "Internet Times"? IFWP is several generations ago.

Regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

--
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