On 6/10/09 8:47 AM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I think it is worth noting that so far I have only seen contributions from people in countries in western countries with stable governments
Well, this is the North American region discussion area, so that stands to reason. If you prefer to try to sell ICANN's interventionist ccTLD policy on the global At-Large list, I'll see you there...
Perhaps your reaction to me is because you think I am trying to "sell" something here. I am not advocating the current approach is necessarily the correct approach, I am trying to inform you on how it is done, and how it came to be, and what some of the corner cases are. The current set of practices ICANN has inherited, and there has been no PDP to actually formalise policy on this stuff - so we rely on precedent, and the principles discussed in RFC 1591. I think some of what are seen as quick fix solutions would have been done a long time ago if it were really that simple, but the reality is by thinking through the consequences they will have undesirable impacts on Internet stability.
Your point of view is indicative of the awfully misguided mission creep that has led ICANN so badly astray.
I think to fulfil your vision of things, ten years ago ICANN would have had to make an explicit break from previous practice and said "from now on, we only listen to governments". I don't see how that would have gone down well. I don't see at all how today's practice illustrates a "mission creep" - if anything government's views carry more weight today than they did prior to ICANN involvement, reflecting the greater level of engagement most governments have in Internet matters compared to the 1980s and 1990s. kim