>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. * >********************************************