At 01:48 AM 4/12/2007, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Since ALSs, even many of them, cannot represent all viewpoints, this gives members of the general public a way to intervene to speak for themselves. We can step way out in front of the other RALOs with this level of involvement.
May be, but the "this" is in the wrong place. The MOU is the agreement between ALSs and ICANN. It is beyond the scope of the ALS/RALO framework to accommodate individuals.
It's a way for individuals to exert pressure on ICANN, not on the RALO. The provision would have no effect on the day-to-day functioning of the collection of ALSs, but gives individuals (and ALSs) recourse when ICANN screws up. Where's the possible harm? --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/