I don't know... (I really don't have a firm opinion on this) I'm just harkening back to the .xxx debate. In my mind, it was a good example of ICANN stepping outside of its role and taking part in a debate that was completely outside of its mandate. IMHO, if the .xxx people had all of their ducks in a row as per ICANN's rules, they should have been able to register that domain name. Instead there was this huge issue about morality (which is totally outside of ICANN's mandate). So, how far is this to be taken? Yes, I think that censorship is wrong but I don't think that this is the correct forum - similarly to John's drinking water point. Yes, we can and should change things from within but bringing up issues that are completely outside of ICANN's responsibility, no matter how important that they may be, only clouds why we are here in the first place. Oh, and Jeffrey, I know that you are being censored but that is because you will not comply with ALAC's well stated codes of conduct so don't bother using this e-mail for your handler's further diatribe. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:10 PM To: John Levine Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Wrapping up the thread/discussion - Apoligies John Levine wrote:
Um, does that mean that if I get a bunch of my friends to caucus and decide that ICANN should address access to clean water, they have to do that, too?
Sorry to throw fuel on a dying fire, but I think the answer to the question has to be yes. ICANN isn't just an institution, it is us. We give it life and in most respects, we set the mandate. I think if you have enough friends that agree that ICANN should do something, then I think the organization should be equipped to incorporate that. In other words, we set ICANN's original mandate and we should be involved in its evolution. I don't think that we'll ever get enough people to agree that ICANN's mandate includes ensuring access to clean water, but there might be a point in the future where we do get broad agreement around ICANN's role dealing with content and censorship issues. For the record, I'm not likely to be one of those people, but I thought it was worth pointing out the principle that we can change ICANN. /r _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org