Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 09:16 PM 7/08/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>So what we are discussing is not "governance", but rather the
>contract terms the *private* entity ICANN will impose on registries
>that wish to use its root zone. 
>
>For example, if ICANN decided that it will only do new registry
>contracts with non-profit entities, that would be a perfectly
>reasonable thing for a private entity to do.  
>

There is no need to come up with bad analogies here.

1. ICANN is not your garden-variety private entity. It is under obligations
to be as public as possible.
2. ICANN sits at the apex of a hierarchy pyramid controlling a set of
singular chokepoints of the Internet. Under such circumstances imposing
contract terms=governance.
3. Only a properly constituted ICANN with all it's elected directors in
place could take decisions of such import.
4. If ICANN would do such a thing against the wishes of the majority of the
stakeholders, especially if these non-profit entities happened to be
operating with a common purpose, ICANN would be found acting in
contravention of both the White Paper and the MoU with NTIA.





--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org