Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #10
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 24 2000         Volume 01 : Number 010

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:56:55 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?

When the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the US House
Commerce Committee held hearings on the DNS system this summer, they asked
precisely this question of those called to testify before then.

Jonathan Zittrain, director of the Berkman Center, answered the question and
posted his response online.  See
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/zittrainqfrs.pdf> (question one, pages 1-2).

Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]> wrote :
> So many voices claiming the failure of ICANN I wonder what the
> alternatives to a self-regulatory body would be?
> Could the UN host a body like this? Or will ICANN be replaced by a USGOV
> body?
>
> It's good to know what the alternatives are. For my own part I think the
> failure contestants are somewhat early in their conclusions, and I still
> think ICANN has a fair chance making it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mikael
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
>   ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked]
>                                               http://www.pawlo.com/
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:02:20 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss ... Am I a member?

At 12:47 22/02/00 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>
>We can't publish a list of current subscribing members' email addresses, 
>since we promised not to ("who is not public"), and we don't have anything 
>else about them to publish.
>
Harald,

I know the "who" command is now disabled, but the pre-december list (with
email addresses) is already in the public domain ..and being abused.

We might as well be realistic and publish the members' list (names only).
It is better to have the beginnings of a voters' roll than to keep turning
around in circles just because of a few possible double-entries.

Unless the outcome of a vote would be marginal, those entries could even
remain unchallenged, or the results could be published with a note.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:12:42 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss ... Am I a member?

At 17:47 22/02/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>It is not necessary to publish the names for any purpose related to 
>voting. 
>

It is. People need to see if they are not omitted from the roll.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:25:19 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss ... Am I a member?

At 15:12 23.02.00 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 17:47 22/02/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> >
> >It is not necessary to publish the names for any purpose related to
> >voting.
> >
>
>It is. People need to see if they are not omitted from the roll.

This purpose can be served by sending out individual email ballots; if you 
didn't get yours, you're not on the roll (or you have to contact the admins 
to correct your email address).

The other purpose (to assure people that the rolls are fairly kept, with no 
"strange" additions) cannot, I think, be met without publication.

                     Harald
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:16:18 +0100 (MET)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Ben Edelman wrote:
> When the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the US House
> Commerce Committee held hearings on the DNS system this summer, they asked
> precisely this question of those called to testify before then.
> Jonathan Zittrain, director of the Berkman Center, answered the question and
> posted his response online.  See
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/zittrainqfrs.pdf> (question one, pages 1-2).

I've read the text on the URL above but it doesn't particulary well 
address the issue of a new UN body addressing Internet issues. Do you know
of more views on the matter?

I think it would be wise to know what might happen if more and more
scholars leave the GA (for various reasons) and ICANN gains no support.

Regards,

Mikael

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
                                              http://www.pawlo.com/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:55:08 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss ... Am I a member? Another consideration.

Another concern relates to unequal access to the data.  It would be unfair if
some "contestants" have better information regarding the make-up of the
electorate than others, especially if that information can be used to contact
those voters "off-list."  And, there will be a perception of discriminatory
access through the list administrator whether it actually exists or not.

And,  having a membership which is different from the mailing list denies
advocates/candidates a convenient vehicle for communicating with the
membership.  Access to the voters list, overcomes that hurdle.  Some other
vehicle for distributing information before elections may also satisfy that
need.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 15:12 23.02.00 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >At 17:47 22/02/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >It is not necessary to publish the names for any purpose related to
> > >voting.
> > >
> >
> >It is. People need to see if they are not omitted from the roll.
>
> This purpose can be served by sending out individual email ballots; if you
> didn't get yours, you're not on the roll (or you have to contact the admins
> to correct your email address).
>
> The other purpose (to assure people that the rolls are fairly kept, with no
> "strange" additions) cannot, I think, be met without publication.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:50:15 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss ... Am I a member?

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:25:19AM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 15:12 23.02.00 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >At 17:47 22/02/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >It is not necessary to publish the names for any purpose related to
> > >voting.
> > >
> >
> >It is. People need to see if they are not omitted from the roll.
> 
> This purpose can be served by sending out individual email ballots; if you 
> didn't get yours, you're not on the roll (or you have to contact the admins 
> to correct your email address).
> 
> The other purpose (to assure people that the rolls are fairly kept, with no 
> "strange" additions) cannot, I think, be met without publication.

Actually, there are other ways to do that, as well -- all that is really
required are auditors.  If you have a set of mutually suspicious
auditors the level of trust required for any given auditor can be quite
low.  (In fact, one can almost think of a public list as a just a
limiting case, where the set of auditors is equal to the set of 
voters.)  [The votebot supports an arbitrary set of auditors.]

I may be conveying the wrong impression, though -- I *prefer* open
publication as the simplest way of accomplishing integrity in elections
- -- other methods quickly become complex and/or insecure.  

More: I believe that publication at some point and in some form is a
necessary component of fair (email) elections.  One can imagine, for
example, a voting system where a list of randomly generated voter ID's
is published, each voter knows their own ID, and the auditors are the
only ones who can see the full association between the IDs and the
actual voters... 

kent

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:07:28 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:16:18PM +0100, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> 
> I think it would be wise to know what might happen if more and more
> scholars leave the GA (for various reasons) and ICANN gains no support.

The departure of scholars from the GA is completely orthogonal to
support of ICANN.  In fact, a good case could be made that scholars,
with their idealistic search for perfection, are particularly pernicious
in a body that must be oriented towards the practical.  "Those who can, 
do; those who can't, become scholars".  ICANN, to be successful, must 
*do* things.  It can't be a testbed for dreams of theoretical 
democracy. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:38:11 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Bingo

Kent Crispin wrote:

> I may be conveying the wrong impression, though -- I *prefer* open publication
> as the simplest way of accomplishing integrity in elections
> -- other methods quickly become complex and/or insecure.
>
> More: I believe that publication at some point and in some form is a
> necessary component of fair (email) elections.  One can imagine, for
> example, a voting system where a list of randomly generated voter ID's
> is published, each voter knows their own ID, and the auditors are the
> only ones who can see the full association between the IDs and the
> actual voters...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:47:03 -0000
From: "Dr. Nii Quaynor" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss ... Am I a member?

>
> More: I believe that publication at some point and in some form is a
> necessary component of fair (email) elections.  One can imagine, for
> example, a voting system where a list of randomly generated voter ID's
> is published, each voter knows their own ID, and the auditors are the
> only ones who can see the full association between the IDs and the
> actual voters...
>

what if real names are published (not contact details). the membership
becomes the auditors which seems very open.

Nii

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:52:47 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss ... Am I a member?

Kent and all,

  I agree with Kent to the extent that auditors are needed to effect
fair and uninhibited elections via E-Mail or the Web.  This much is
quite obvious given the past two fraudulent elections held here, and
the very fraudulent "Poll" for list rules.

  It is important to also insure that these "Auditors" are in no way
connected with ICANN or the DNSO.  So they should be independent
auditors that have experience in this type of auditing.

  However the rest of Kents comments would fall under violation of
privacy and a violation of the privacy act as well.

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:25:19AM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > At 15:12 23.02.00 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >At 17:47 22/02/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >It is not necessary to publish the names for any purpose related to
> > > >voting.
> > > >
> > >
> > >It is. People need to see if they are not omitted from the roll.
> >
> > This purpose can be served by sending out individual email ballots; if you
> > didn't get yours, you're not on the roll (or you have to contact the admins
> > to correct your email address).
> >
> > The other purpose (to assure people that the rolls are fairly kept, with no
> > "strange" additions) cannot, I think, be met without publication.
>
> Actually, there are other ways to do that, as well -- all that is really
> required are auditors.  If you have a set of mutually suspicious
> auditors the level of trust required for any given auditor can be quite
> low.  (In fact, one can almost think of a public list as a just a
> limiting case, where the set of auditors is equal to the set of
> voters.)  [The votebot supports an arbitrary set of auditors.]
>
> I may be conveying the wrong impression, though -- I *prefer* open
> publication as the simplest way of accomplishing integrity in elections
> -- other methods quickly become complex and/or insecure.
>
> More: I believe that publication at some point and in some form is a
> necessary component of fair (email) elections.  One can imagine, for
> example, a voting system where a list of randomly generated voter ID's
> is published, each voter knows their own ID, and the auditors are the
> only ones who can see the full association between the IDs and the
> actual voters...
>
> kent
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:04:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?

Kent and all,

  Unfortunately you are painting "Scholars" with too broad a brush
and there by committing the logical fallacy of "Glittering Generalities"
here Kent.  Many Scholars, do, *Do things*, and the academe
of sciences clearly indicates, as well as those many that have
won the Nobel prize in different endeavors of categories.  Many
still yet also are actively engaged in practical endeavors both inside
and outside of their affiliated universities.  So to brand them as
particularly "Pernicious" is incorrect in the broad sense.

  Nice try though!

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:16:18PM +0100, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> >
> > I think it would be wise to know what might happen if more and more
> > scholars leave the GA (for various reasons) and ICANN gains no support.
>
> The departure of scholars from the GA is completely orthogonal to
> support of ICANN.  In fact, a good case could be made that scholars,
> with their idealistic search for perfection, are particularly pernicious
> in a body that must be oriented towards the practical.  "Those who can,
> do; those who can't, become scholars".  ICANN, to be successful, must
> *do* things.  It can't be a testbed for dreams of theoretical
> democracy.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:26:59 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?

In my prior message, I should also have mentioned an article in the Berkley
Technology Law Journal that Jonathan wrote on the same subject -- expanding
in somewhat greater detail on the question of "What if ICANN Fails?"

<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/zittrainbtlj.pdf>

I think I appropriately characterize this article to say that the
alternatives to ICANN all have serious risks and shortcomings.  In
particular, of the possibility of an inter-governmental entity taking over
ICANN's responsibilities, he comments:

"... It is not clear to me that such an organization would make policies
that are any more in touch with the Internet community than those proposed
by a well-functioning ICANN. More importantly, as the historical context
suggests, the power of the root derives from the fact that a critical mass
of system administrators and “mirror” root zone server operators choose to
follow it. A drastic turnaround in the management of Internet top-level
functions—either through a sea change in favor of much more aggressive
government involvement, or one that purports to literally privatize the
whole system (imagine auctioning it off to the highest bidder)—could result
in abandonment of the network by the technical or user community. RealNames
might seem a more appealing alternative to addressing than it has to date.
Engineers who run the domain name servers (that in turn sub-scribe to the
root server for information about domain names) might simply point the
servers elsewhere. The web of contracts currently buttressing the natural
network effects (that auger only one predominant naming scheme) do not yet
reach to every Internet service provider. Universities, companies like
Prodigy or the Microsoft Network, and large corporations could cease
listening to Jon Postel’s “legacy root” for authoritative information about
<.com>, <.net>, and <.org>."

Surely there exist other scholarly commentaries on the subject, but I
unfortunately know of no others.

Ben Edelman

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 8:16 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Ben Edelman wrote:
> When the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the US House
> Commerce Committee held hearings on the DNS system this summer, they asked
> precisely this question of those called to testify before then.
> Jonathan Zittrain, director of the Berkman Center, answered the question
and
> posted his response online.  See
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/zittrainqfrs.pdf> (question one, pages 1-2).

I've read the text on the URL above but it doesn't particulary well
address the issue of a new UN body addressing Internet issues. Do you know
of more views on the matter?

I think it would be wise to know what might happen if more and more
scholars leave the GA (for various reasons) and ICANN gains no support.

Regards,

Mikael

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:46:26 +0100 (MET)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:16:18PM +0100, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> > I think it would be wise to know what might happen if more and more
> > scholars leave the GA (for various reasons) and ICANN gains no support.
> The departure of scholars from the GA is completely orthogonal to
> support of ICANN.  In fact, a good case could be made that scholars,
> with their idealistic search for perfection, are particularly pernicious
> in a body that must be oriented towards the practical.  "Those who can, 
> do; those who can't, become scholars".  ICANN, to be successful, must 
> *do* things.  It can't be a testbed for dreams of theoretical 
> democracy. 

Yadi, yadi, yadi.
ICANN would be fine competetor in the cleaning houses-business if no one
considered the ways and directions ICANN should be working in and towards.
I thought the GA was more of a policy-thinking assembly than an executive
one, thus ICANN the executive force. (Yes I wrote that the scholars leave
the GA (not ICANN))

Anyway, I only got one serious response to my question so I guess things
are as they always were on this list. If anyone has more references on
the original matter than the Zittrain one I would still be interested in
those.

Regards,

Mikael

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
                                              http://www.pawlo.com/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:17:07 +0100 (MET)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?

That's a much better reference. I will look into this tomorrow. Thanks a
lot!

Mikael

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Ben Edelman wrote:

> In my prior message, I should also have mentioned an article in the Berkley
> Technology Law Journal that Jonathan wrote on the same subject -- expanding
> in somewhat greater detail on the question of "What if ICANN Fails?"
> 
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/zittrainbtlj.pdf>
> 
> I think I appropriately characterize this article to say that the
> alternatives to ICANN all have serious risks and shortcomings.  In
> particular, of the possibility of an inter-governmental entity taking over
> ICANN's responsibilities, he comments:
> 
> "... It is not clear to me that such an organization would make policies
> that are any more in touch with the Internet community than those proposed
> by a well-functioning ICANN. More importantly, as the historical context
> suggests, the power of the root derives from the fact that a critical mass
> of system administrators and “mirror” root zone server operators choose to
> follow it. A drastic turnaround in the management of Internet top-level
> functions—either through a sea change in favor of much more aggressive
> government involvement, or one that purports to literally privatize the
> whole system (imagine auctioning it off to the highest bidder)—could result
> in abandonment of the network by the technical or user community. RealNames
> might seem a more appealing alternative to addressing than it has to date.
> Engineers who run the domain name servers (that in turn sub-scribe to the
> root server for information about domain names) might simply point the
> servers elsewhere. The web of contracts currently buttressing the natural
> network effects (that auger only one predominant naming scheme) do not yet
> reach to every Internet service provider. Universities, companies like
> Prodigy or the Microsoft Network, and large corporations could cease
> listening to Jon Postel’s “legacy root” for authoritative information about
> <.com>, <.net>, and <.org>."
> 
> 
> Surely there exist other scholarly commentaries on the subject, but I
> unfortunately know of no others.
> 
> 
> Ben Edelman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 8:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Ben Edelman wrote:
> > When the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the US House
> > Commerce Committee held hearings on the DNS system this summer, they asked
> > precisely this question of those called to testify before then.
> > Jonathan Zittrain, director of the Berkman Center, answered the question
> and
> > posted his response online.  See
> > <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/zittrainqfrs.pdf> (question one, pages 1-2).
> 
> I've read the text on the URL above but it doesn't particulary well
> address the issue of a new UN body addressing Internet issues. Do you know
> of more views on the matter?
> 
> I think it would be wise to know what might happen if more and more
> scholars leave the GA (for various reasons) and ICANN gains no support.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mikael
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
                                              http://www.pawlo.com/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:49:17 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] *IF* ICANN fails what about UN?

At 22:46 23.02.00 +0100, Mikael Pawlo wrote:

>Yadi, yadi, yadi.
>ICANN would be fine competetor in the cleaning houses-business if no one
>considered the ways and directions ICANN should be working in and towards.
>I thought the GA was more of a policy-thinking assembly than an executive
>one, thus ICANN the executive force. (Yes I wrote that the scholars leave
>the GA (not ICANN))

Hmmm....I do not think of myself as a scholar, yet I think of myself as 
being able to think about matters of policy. Should I feel slighted?

My personal feeling is that if ICANN fails, we'll have to go through the 
whole exercise over again, and the end result is likely to have the same 
faults as ICANN, since the external pressures that are the basis for these 
faults (money power in a few hands, little coherence among the users, deep 
distrust among both the users and the money powers towards governmental 
solutions) remain much the same.

My personal reaction to this feeling is that I spend some of my time trying 
to see if aspects of ICANN can be made to work better.

>Anyway, I only got one serious response to my question so I guess things
>are as they always were on this list.

Not quite - you didn't get flamed this time, I think.
There may still be hope.

                        Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #10
***********************