[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [atlarge-discuss] Opportunity for Action
I think Michael Froomkin put Cohen's message in proper context:
Re: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization
To: Jonathan Cohen <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>, DannyYounger@cs.com,
ga@dnso.org, vcerf@mci.net, apisan@servidor.unam.mx, Amadeu@nominalia.com,
karl@CaveBear.com, k13@nikhef.nl, ivanmc@akwan.com.br, lyman@acm.org,
f.fitzsimmons@att.net, mkatoh@mkatoh.net, hans@icann.org,
shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr, lynn@icann.org, andy@ccc.de, junsec@wide.ad.jp,
quaynor@ghana.com, helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de, linda@icann.org,
NVictory@ntia.doc.gov
In-Reply-To: <GJEJJCHJEGIJBCNAIEAMGEBBCBAA.jcohen@shapirocohen.com>
Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Why is it that the multiple previous efforts are inadequate?
What is it about the authors of the earlier reports, e.g. the Bildt
committee, or their analysis or conclusions that you found insufficient or
unpersuasive or lacking in 'objectivity'?
Why isn't it fairer to say that delaying this via the current process
"undermines" those previous and unanimous efforts?
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Jonathan Cohen wrote:
> Danny ,
> you and i have talked about this before in 'general terms',but I would be
> pleased to clarify "my" thinking on the subject.It would be just that "my
> thinking" not that of the Board or any other Member.However, I think it
> appropriate to allow the ERC to finish its work and the ALAG to be looked
at
> 'objectively' by those who have undertaken the task.To open up this
dialogue
> now undermines that effort. If ultimately it recommends an ALSO,or,if
after
> some experience or debate that is considered a wise decision...I have
every
> confidence it will be made. Other Constituencies that are 'arguably'
better
> represented in ICANN (Some people feel the current "At Large" in ICANN
> consists of a relatively small number of individuals a large % of whom
are
> American and that is not necessarily a"constituency' from which one can
draw
> much policy comfort on a "global" scale)and which feel they should have
an
> SO. Lets chat in the Fall
> best regards
> Jonathan
p.s. Cohen (non)replied:
Hi Michael, It certainly is a defensible point of view.I will answer your
Questions upon my return. I apologize but I am leaving for Eastern Europe
and Turkey within hours so I havent the time to discuss this. I will be
back
on the 28th and will reply
best regards
Jonathan
Find the thread here: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/thrd58.html
J
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Judith Oppenheimer
http://JudithOppenheimer.com
http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
http://WhoSells800.com
212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 1:49 PM
> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Opportunity for Action
>
>
> For the benefit of those members that are not yet subscribed
> to the General
> Assembly list, the following is a response from Director Jon
> Cohen on the
> subject of an At-Large Supporting Organization:
>
> Danny ,
> you and i have talked about this before in 'general
> terms',but I would be
> pleased to clarify "my" thinking on the subject.It would be
> just that "my
> thinking" not that of the Board or any other Member.However,
> I think it
> appropriate to allow the ERC to finish its work and the ALAG
> to be looked at
> 'objectively' by those who have undertaken the task.To open
> up this dialogue
> now undermines that effort. If ultimately it recommends an
> ALSO,or,if after
> some experience or debate that is considered a wise
> decision...I have every
> confidence it will be made. Other Constituencies that are
> 'arguably' better
> represented in ICANN (Some people feel the current "At Large" in ICANN
> consists of a relatively small number of individuals a large
> % of whom are
> American and that is not necessarily a"constituency' from
> which one can draw
> much policy comfort on a "global" scale)and which feel they
> should have an
> SO. Lets chat in the Fall
> best regards
> Jonathan
>
> --------------------------------
>
> If the At-Large is ever to have any directors on the ICANN
> Board, it will
> need to have all its "structures" commit to the creation of a
> Supporting
> Organization for the At-large. I would advise having the
> icannatlarge.com
> Panel contact each member of the ALAC team and ask them to
> immediately
> endorse a joint statement in support of the creation of such
> a Supporting
> Organization. Timing is often the key to success. This
> would be a good
> time to get this done. In my view, a united front will serve
> the needs of
> the At-large at this point.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de