[ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG

[James Love]

I agree with Milton that the board should address it's obligation to follow
the bottom up task force recommendations.  I also think that with regard to
the .org task force, there are ways it can address areas of the TF
recommendations that it believes are incomplete or vague.   If it does not
in a way that is not inconsistent with the .org task force, then it has less
explaining to do.

It would also seem to me as a practical matter that the board could reject a
DNSO TF recommendation for good cause, but if so, it would seem better to
send the matter back to the DSNO to repair or restate the recommendation,
rather than just do whatever the board likes.   Otherwise, serious people
will see little utility in working on these task forces.

  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
To: <karl at cavebear.com>; <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
Cc: <KathrynKL at aol.com>; <mcade at att.com>; <love at cptech.org>;
<discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <froomkin at law.miami.edu>; <Amadeu at nominalia.com>;
<jcohen at shapirocohen.com>; <vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG


> >>> "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> 04/01/02 05:39PM >>>
>
> > much of this ground was covered in the Board discussion in Accra
> about
> > .org, when we stated that judging/policing non-commercial use would
> > be difficult and muddy, and would require an opinon about content.
> > It's good to see the discussion played out in more detail.
>
> This is an odd comment. The same discussion
> was "played out in detail" on the NCDNHC list last summer,
> played out in more detail among the NC Task Force. And
> yet, Alejandro, you voted against a NCDNHC resolution stating that
> same point. How interesting.
>
> Many have always suspected the ICANN management/Board
> to suffer from a "Not Invented Here" syndrome.
> Here is evidence. If the Board has a discussion and comes to
> a conclusion it's a great idea. If the idea comes from the bottom
> up, it's greeted with suspicion, or it doesn't even exist.
>
>