AW: [governance] Where are we going?

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

Why should this be institutionalized at all, especially at the 
international level?  Once we agree there is little if any technical 
constraint, why assume we need a political one?   I certainly don't accept 
that as a matter of faith, nor in fact do I see why it would be legitimate 
to create it.  And to the extent it would work through/with existing 
structures, they're most certainly not bottom-up and hence not 
self-legitimating.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

> My conclusion from the debate so far is that there is a missing link in 
> the mechanism of involved institutions and organisations. We all agree 
> that ICANN should not go beyond its narrow defined technical mandate. A 
> lot of us agree also that it should not be the GAC (alone) to make the 
> final decision. Other IG organisations (potential partners in the 
> process of enhanced cooperation) are even worse positioned to make such 
> a decision. One conclusion could be to create a new multistakeholder 
> body for cases like this which gets for very narrow defined cases a 
> final decision making mandate. This could be a joint GAC/ICANN Working 
> Group or something new. Any ideas?
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>

-- 
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance