|
Harris Miller
- posted on 2000-10-10 10:27:44
|
|
Once again you have created a strawman. I have indicated
that ICANN should not get involved in broad, non-ICANN related policy issues
such as consumer privacy and Internet taxation, rather than quibbling over
what is technical and what is policy.
|
|
Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D.
- posted on 2000-10-08 21:13:33
|
|
Thanks to my fellow candidates for their responses to my question.
|
|
Barbara Simons
- posted on 2000-10-05 15:28:25
|
|
I agree with your point that many technical decisions have policy implications, especially in the ICANN environment. So, we should not be naive about this issue. Nonetheless, I feel that ICANN should as much as possible limit itself to technical issues. In particular, ICANN should avoid areas that are purely policy.
|
|
Lyman Chapin
- posted on 2000-10-04 08:06:43
|
|
I agree with your comment during Monday night's forum at Harvard that one reason ICANN claims so loudly to be engaged in only technical decisions is to stay below the radar of the U.S. Congress and the Department of Commerce, which would presumably pay much closer (unwelcome) attention to ICANN if they thought that it was deliberately making important policy decisions for the Internet. However, I think that the almost unanimous call for greater transparency and participation is a clear sign that we recognize the policy role that ICANN cannot avoid, and want to be sure that the protections you mention are not lost.
|
|
Lawrence Lessig
- posted on 2000-10-04 03:29:26
|
|
Absolutely not. Obviously, technical
decisions have political consequences --
architecture is politics, code is law. But
the issue is which rhetoric better keeps
ICANN focused on a narrow mission. If
ICANN became comfortable believing its
job was to make policy decisions, then it
would quickly become a policy maker. It
has no sanction for that role.
|
