[ncdnhc-discuss] boundaries of IPR policy making

[Dave Crocker]

At 01:40 PM 5/12/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
>Can you tell me the authority for your instructions on how to participate in
>this process.

experience with successful and unsuccessful public discussion about 
organizational scope and procedure.  broad, vague discussion 
fails.  specific, concrete discussion succeeds.

The reason for the disparity is simple.  Broad vague discussion invites 
differences in interpretation and avoids pragmatic 
considerations.  Specific, concrete discussion has neither of these pitfalls.


>    Maybe you can share your thoughts on what the ICANN mission
>should  be on IPR, rather than trying to tell me how to express my views.

All of the concern about ICANN mission creep comes from people afraid of 
what might happen, rather than from any real experience of what has.  So my 
thoughts are:  it ain't broke, so please do not try to fix it.

There is no such thing as a "small" change to an essentially social 
process.  All changes have unintended consequences, event when the change 
purports to have no immediate impact but, instead, to pertain to the future.

James, YOU are the one requesting a change.  Hence the burden of justifying 
it falls on you.  So, please, use your questions on yourself.

Why should your requested change be done.  What benefits will accrue?  What 
is the basis for seeking the change?

Why not also have language that insists that ICANN shall not kill anyone, 
or shall not have meetings in places that are difficult to travel to, or 
shall refuse registration of strings that are obscene, or...???

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850