At 08:23 AM 4/12/2007, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
It's a way for individuals to exert pressure on ICANN, not on the RALO. Then this provision has no place in a document governing the RALO.
That's why it's in the MOU with ICANN, not the Operating Principles of 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. That recourse exists whether it's granted to them by the RALO or not.
As written, it's granted by ICANN. We're using the fact that ICANN wants to sign this MOU for leverage.
Where's the possible harm?
Lack. Of. Focus.
No, it's pin-point focused on getting individuals heard within ICANN, precisely what ALSs and RALOs are supposed to be about. --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/