NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Horacio T. Cadiz" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:06:43 +0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
On 12/23/2011 04:37 AM, Dan Krimm wrote:

> The real point is the nature of the decision process (or if you prefer:
> "due process") that leads to such an outcome, thus this is not simply
> about RC as an isolated case.  It's about what criteria we might use to
> decide that RC is a valid exception to some other rule (and other orgs
> that satisfied the same criteria might also be captured as valid
> exceptions, but orgs that did not would not).
>
> Any institutional process that is executed as an ad hoc decision takes
> power away from the rule of rules (or "the rule of law" if you prefer) and
> gives it to individuals or specific collections of people without
> meaningful accountability.
>
> The key to a healthy institutional governance process is to put in place
> clear and effective structures of accountability, based on decision
> criteria that are well-defined and publicly verifiable.
>
> So at root the question is this:
>
> What general/abstract process/criteria could justify a special case for RC
> without letting everyone and their brother have the same special
> dispensation?
>
> (For example, should I have special consideration for my trademark for
> "Music Unbound"?  I can't see any reason why I should, and I don't seek
> it.  I believe I can protect my trademark well enough without having to
> own all the "musicunbound.tld" domains or the ".musicunbound" or ".munb"
> tlds.)
>
> If RC really is deserving, let's spell out exactly and precisely why that
> might be so, and consider whether that explication really holds water in
> principle.  If we can agree on the principle, then we should have no
> problem agreeing on the empirical execution of that principle.
>
> But whatever we (ICANN) do, I think it should be based on a structural,
> principled set of criteria, not an ad hoc decision by fiat.
>
> "Ad hoc" = the rule of humans, which is the first thing we want to avoid
> in any context of public governance.

   I was planning to say the same thing but you beat me to it.  B-)



-- 
Bombim Cadiz
*****************************************
*  Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) --  *
* No windows. No gates. It is open.     *
* No Bill. It is Free.                  *
*****************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2