At 07:08 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
>through governments, that might even be solace, but my point is that even
>in its current incarnation ICANN seems to me to have quite tight
>constraints on what it can do.
I don't know how you can say that when it's ignoring it's own bylaws
Jonothon.
>"independent." We need ICANN to be able to make decisions in the public
>interest,
No, ICANN is supposed to coordinate technical parameters relating
to an aggregate of private networks.
>and addresses..." That's inevitably something with a political/policy
>component; one look at the WIPO suggestions makes that clear, and all the
>anxiety over process and accountability shows that this isn't mere
>standards-setting like how big the flange on an A/C cord should be.
Go back and listen to the Boston meeting, or read the transcripts
of the ORSC/ICANN conference calls. Back then, membership was job #1.
>What started me this afternoon was reading Craig's message, which I thought
>well highlighted the bind that any organization will find itself in when
>trying to assert itself in this very sensitive space.
Shitcanning the arrogant rhetoric would be a good start. I don't
think I ever say Jon Postel get more angry than "mildly irritated";
perhaps those who knew him better disagree, but you certainly can't
find any evidence of it.
Maybe it was his sandals. Maybe the ICANN's board feet hurt or something.
Buncha grouchy old men.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
