| Nickname - Message |
|---|
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 16:55) hello out there, what do you think about the discussion so far |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:01) so how do you all feel about the concern that ICANN is not represenative of non-US users? |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:03) More specifically, do you agree that internet policy should not be determined exclusively by the US? |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:04) I would argue that the internet has the potential to act as an equalizer between developed and developing nations to some degree -- but not if the developing nations have no input into the creation of the law. |
| <SharonL> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:10) How are you defining "Internet Policy"? Legal redress issues? Community standards? Technology standards? "Policy" is such a wide word, perhaps a distinction of which global polices can be enforced, and which cannot be licensed, policed, and/or handled by one overall structure like ICANN. |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:16) I guess what I am driving at is that when a UDRP is created for example, people in Botswana, China, Paraguay etc should have as much to say about it as the US because they too will be affected by it. I am wondering if there is a way, given that I agree that policy cannot be separated form technolgy --so no matter what ICANN does it will be policy, to create soem sort of governing body through ICANN that allows equal input into all decisions form all over the world. |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:23) Andrew, Jason, William, any thoughts? |
| <AndrewB> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:24) What Simons and Lessig are saying is true |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:24) in what sense, what in particular? |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:25) I like Simons but I think that Lessig is a bit extreme at times |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:26) are any of you actually eligible to vote? |
| <AndrewB> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:26) yes |
| <JasonY> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:26) I was not happy with the answers to the question regarding lack of accountability |
| <JasonY> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:27) This is a US dominated forum. |
| <JasonY> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:27) If anything "Safe Harbor" showed that the US is going to do what it wants to do |
| <JasonY> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:27) regardless of what other jurisdictions might feel. |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:28) what's safe harbor? |
| <JasonY> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:28) It's the US response to the European Directive. |
| <JasonY> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:28) On privacy. |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:29) so you don't see any way to enable input from non-US parties? |
| <JasonY> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:29) It seems a flawed system by design. |
| <SharonL> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:29) I certainly would not want to be held to the legal redress and/or community standards of a more repressive legal system. The only possible global consensus reachable would be on the policy issue of technology. All other questions with respect to equality of input, which I agree with in theory, are basicly moot. How would it be possible for ICANN to enforce ANY consensus other than technological. |
| <AndrewB> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:30) ICANN cannot avoid making "policy" decisions |
| <JasonY> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:30) I like Lessig's idea of competitive policy making. Maybe that's the answer. |
| <JasonY> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:30) Or was that Simon? |
| <AndrewB> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:30) Yes, but that is also a policy decision |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:32) I think Lessig is hitting in something here. But I disagree that we should eliminate any governance structure -- I think he is right in being concerned that it isn't represenative. |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:33) Sharon, how do you respond to the legitimacy and sovereignty problem being discussed now? why should the rest of the world be subject to US domination via the internet? |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:34) I don't see it as a possibility that any user necessarily has to be subject to the repressive laws of a given country -- but all countries should be allowed to decide what laws and in what way govern everyone. |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:39) looks like things are winding down. any last thoughts? anybody changed their vote as a result of this? |
| <SharonL> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:40) I am very concerned whever I hear "broad consesus" as a viable criteria when policy is being discussed unless that policy is on techology only. Sovereignty on legal, community standards and etc. cannot be equitable handled by a political entity such as ICANN. |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:41) then what type of organization should/can handle it? it does have to be addressed. |
| <AndrewB> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:46) i will put harris last |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:47) oh, i didn't realize that it was a ranking thing. |
| <AndrewB> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:48) Voters rank as many candidates as they want from 1-7 |
| <AndrewB> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:48) This avoids any needs for run-off elections |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:48) I personally started off supporting Tiller based on the web pages the candidates put up, but after this I think Simons is stronger. |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:48) He hasn't said a thing |
| <ModeratorPoppi> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:49) well good luck and thanks for participating. |
| <AndrewB> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:49) I put tiller in the middle of the pack |
| <AndrewB> (Mon, October 02, 2000 at 17:49) But, he does have some good ideas and he is committed |
|
|
|