"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 05:26 PM 1/12/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote: >>Since the ICANN is (supposedly) an interim board, shouldn't we >>(ie. folks on this list) be doing that anyway? So, what would all of >>you do if there was no ICANN? More specificially, what if the USG >>(and other governments) were to totally step back from the process, >>and say "ok, you win -- you get to self-govern. The only stipulation >>is that you get no protection from us if laws are broken. If you're >>hauled into court, it's up to you to provide your own defense, as you >>are in a sense creating your own rules." >What would you do? >They won't answer because they're hard at work building something >they hope will get recognized as the DNSO. *Thats my point*. OK, but I would assume then that they are following this process because they have some faith (or hope) that the process will yield better solutions than extant (or previous) processes. For example, I get this impression from Michael Sondow and Tom Lowenhaupt, who feel that the ICANN structure provides for input that would otherwise not be considered. Is this the DNSO's position? What I'm suggesting is that despite the fact that ICANN may have unclear origins, people are willing to go along with it because they believe it can work. So in a sense ICANN's legitimacy stems from the trust that people have placed in it. --gregbo __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
