Re: [ga] Developing an alternative to ICANN 2.0

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

The reason IMHO is that the game is pretty much fixed: dissidents know
they can't get the votes to influence outcomes, there is no
balloting open to the public in any forum.  Thus no incentive to
participate if you are not an insider.

On Fri, 30 May 2003, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> We are on the eve of a major election/nomination of the ICANN BoD. This is 
> supposed to be an event that will deeply influence the Internet policy in 
> the years to come, as a large number of Directors is involved.
> However, I don't feel the tension that I have experienced at the times of 
> the selection of the initial BoD. The hectic horse-trading, the circulation 
> of names of candidates, the intense phone calling, the gossip on the lists, 
> the cross-vetos, and so on, is not there.

[...]
> 
> The reason, IMHO, is that the stakes are lower.

Only in the sense that the outcomes are fixed, so why play?


-- 
		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