[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on GAC

[Milton Mueller]

Alejandro,
all of what you say below is fairly 
reasonable, and I would grant your wish 
to withdraw the resolution, if it were
not for the extremely troublesome fact
that the "action plan" proposed by the
President included every conceivable 
relevant player in the discussion group 
except for the one that is officially 
charged with formulating domain name 
policies: the DNSO.

The role for the DNSO in the action 
plan is minimal: it says, after we
have bypassed you completely and made a
decision that may have long-term 
precedential value regarding .info, 
you can talk in general terms about
various approaches. But how do we
know whether the staff or Board or GAC
will override those recommendations
again, if sufficient pressure is put
on the Board? 

Also, the Board and President have not 
yet responded substantively to the 
unanimous resolution passed by the 
Names Council protesting the Board's
action. 

I would welcome specific amendments
to the resolution, which may be
accepted as friendly if they address
these concerns adequately. (I will
already accept the change in title!)
And of course at the annual meeting, a
motion to table the resolution would
be in order and if members supported
it, it would be deferred.

>>> "Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx> 10/27/01 00:07 AM >>>
Hi!

in proposing the "resolution on GAC", which really is a "resolution about
action prompted by a GAC resolution", it seems there are two possible
tracks:

1. denounce everything and close all discussions.

2. read ICANN's President's proposed plan of action carefully, discuss it,
and observe that it in turn recognizes the comlex nature of the problem
and the diversity of points of view about the use of country and other
geographically related names, and that it calls for an open discussion of
the issue.

In particular it emphatically calls to "Encourage the Domain
Name Supporting Organization to evaluate possible approaches
for longer-term arrangements concerning use of geographic names
within the DNS".

Someone boasting international sensitivity would have realized long ago
that even if some think the GAC proposal is wrong, it comes from the
international community (moreover, from a number of developing countries).

So - the rational, sane way to approach the matter may be to start a
discussion on the use of geographic names in the DNS. To conserve an ample
decision space, to further understanding of the complexities pointed,
among others, by Kathy, etc., I'd wish the motion to consider the
"resolution on GAC" be withdrawn (just a wish), and, whether that happens
or not, let's
hear the opinions of the experts, and of interested parties, as would
academic organizations interested in fairness and rationality.

Do note that I voted against the GAC proposal, uphold my opinion, stand by
the majority
result of the Board vote, and think that opening a new stage of discussion
will still be productive even after many, many rounds of it.

Alejandro Pisanty
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM  -  Educacion Abierta y a Distancia
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-5) 622-8713, 622-8633 Fax 550-8405

http://www.cuaed.unam.mx
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isocmex.org.mx, www.isoc.org
=====>>> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
---->> Internet y Sociedad? www.istf.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss