>Adam Peake said:
>
>>>Suggest we begin by thinking of comments we can send before Sept 13
>>>on structure and methodology of the working group, and general
>>>composition.  I don't think we must limit ourselves to what we think
>>>politically possible (e.g. Veni's probably correct reading of the
>>>way things will work out), but instead suggest what we believe is
>>>right, and say why.
>
>    I suggest that we look at how the IFWP developed into ICANN and
>see how the WGIG process can be prevented from birthing another ICANN.


Horacio,

By "birthing another ICANN" do you mean the way the initial board
miraculously appeared? Apparently selected by John Postel, but over
time we learn that it was more likely the result of a few governments
making selections?

Do you think the same thing might happen with the working group, that
governments might make our selections for us? (the final decision is
clearly with Kofi Annan anyway, but names given to him by governments
and some insiders?)

I think that must be a concern, but Markus Kummer has been extremely
open and I am very much inclined to trust him. And we can help him by
responding to his calls for contributions: on what we think the
working group should look like (including the types of people who
should be members), how it should operate, and names.  But to be
clear, I heard him emphasize the former over specific names at the
moment (at the moment.)

Thanks,

Adam


>--
>Horacio T. Cadiz
>********************************************
>* Linux. No Windows. No Gates. It is Open. *
>* No Bill. It is Free.                     *
>********************************************