Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...
At 07:04 p.m. 7/08/2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:17:26AM -0700, Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote a message of 67 lines which said: If I read him right, Karl sees that national governments have that role to play. I say that for trans-border regulation they are too slow a force to deal effectively with political name and number issues. Some Body has to be built in which the wired Individuals can be satisfied with the role they play. A mechanism through which they can protect their rights on the network, as they develop in the world's Courts. The questions are, how can this Body be given sufficient credibility and authority to be able to influence the Names and Numbers game to the benefit of its members? How can it be given sufficient financial independence to not be immediately bought by industry interests? I understand that a single organization may be not suited for every task and I agree that "ICANN doesn't fit anybody's definition of encompassing all the parties who are affected by its decisions." but who does? NewCo (ICANN) was the false promise of the White Paper that made us waste our time with proposals for a constituency of Individuals and an "At Large Membership". You are right that it is time to address the question of individual representation in an International Organization anew with focus and creativity. -joop-
|