Michael Maranda wrote:
No, it isnt NARALO's business as a whole, but I welcome opportunity to learn from Canadian experience and policy and to that extent it is a great opportunity for NARALO to work together for mutual benefit. I am thankful for Canadian input on this. We need to learn from each other.
I need to defer to the American members of this list whether it is a valuable use of our resources (ie, our time!) to define and publicize a policy or reaction related to the .us contract. If this is something that NARALO's US participants believe is important, I'm prepared to stand behind that -- just as I'd hope they'd support us Canadians should something of relevance happen up here. Danny said this is important, this is upsetting, and that we ought to react. John said that, regardless of its importance, it's out of the realm of ICANN and thus a waste of NARALO's time. I guess maybe you're both right. Our position within ICANN gives us access to information about namespace issues, that may allow us to better react and be better aware. (After all, how many groups out there are watching such activities to protect the interest of the public?) Having said that, John's right -- if it's out of our direct realm of influence, NARALO is probably best to just gain wisdom from the information but not to make much noise about it. As someone who believes in the "keep the core neutral" campaign, I agree that it's important not to force -- or even pressure -- ICANN to be more than it is. Having said that, I appreciate Danny's efforts in this regard and wonder if there is any role we can play in raising public awareness. Maybe we're not the ones to hold the .us registry accountable -- but if not ICANN, then who? - Evan