On 3/6/13 11:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
There is no Community here because no Community has declared itself. There is no Community harm here because no Community is claiming harm.
An IGO does not count as Community.
Avri, Granted we differ, as we frequently do, in conclusion, and I don't seek to alter yours, and I do share your process point that discussion on the na-discuss list should not be abandoned due to the acts, or omissions, of others, or other regional groups, but I'm concerned as to the means by which you arrived at this particular conclusion. Does a community cease to exist when it acquires enduring access to public policy? That is, does "entering government" of a state necessarily extinguish "a community"? More basically, is "community" a designator of a lack of autonomy in a state legal system? Does a "Catalan community" only exist as a minority dominated by the Madrid government, and will the "Catalan community" cease to exist, if and when, regional autonomy is devolved from Madrid to Barcelona? I suggest that if we understand "community" to necessarily exclude any collection of parties holding common interests which have acquired enduring access to public policy we will (a) be assuming a significant burden -- distinguishing states from non-states, and (b) restricting the adoption of registries with registration policies unlike COM to applicants lacking enduring access to public policy anywhere. I suggest that the public health community in Canada did not cease to exist when the antecedent to Health Canada was formed, nor did the public health community in the United States and Puerto Rico cease to exist when An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen was passed by the 5th Congress in 1798. Nor did they cease their continued existence, as communities with enduring access to public policy, when the Pan American Sanitary Bureau was formed in 1902. Nor did they cease their continued existence, as communities with enduring access to public policy,in 1907, with the formation of the Office International d'Hygiene Publique, or with the subsequent formation of the League of Nations Health Organization. I suggest that these same communities continue to exist in the present, and are not harmed, except in the formulation you've proposed, by their continuous re-creation of the means of cooperation, institutionalized in part as the World Health Organization. I accept, as a possibility, that an IGO exists which does not suggest a community in the sense that we've developed since the San Juan meeting, but find the reduction you've offered -- "An IGO does not count as Community" -- amounts to an assertion of the primacy of private speculators over public investors in the growth in use and utility of the DNS by the public, in particular, the use of identifiers related to public health. Again, I share your process view that abandonment of discussion on na-discuss is an abandonment of responsibilities. Eric