Re: [gnso-osc-ops] DOI
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] DOI
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:04:33 -0400
This is rather hypothetical. You could just as well pre-confess to the
possibility of using services originating from Elbonia (Lower), an
underdeveloped economy, by an NGO not yet in existence, in a script
not yet encoded in Unicode, in a language you don't yet know.
I think it unlikely that Indians will be considered economically
distinct from the rest of North America, or Appalachia for that
matter, and that the "developing countries" language, which appears to
be suggestive, not proscriptive, in Recommendation 20, the substance
of the SOAC AG, will extend to applications intending to serve the
needs of North American Indians, or marginalized non-indigenous
populations. Therefore, I see no _real_ "interest" to declare in the
SOAC AG context. Fee reduction, ability to apply for an ASCII string,
a ᎣᏏᏲ string, and a ᓂᓴᓕ string (under either (a) or (b) approaches)
would be wicked useful. But as these are improbable, there is no
material "interest" in advocating these as generally available to
applications that do meet the eventual interpretation of the
characterization in Recommendation 20.
So I _do_not_ declare an interest that does not currently exist, nor
is likely to exist.
To pick another scab, when eligibility closed for a certain
unaffiliated elected position, I asked ICANN Counsel for guidance, as
my employ with CORE ended three or four days after the date at which a
would-be candidate had to meet the unaffiliated condition. My
non-affiliation was _certain_ at a date only days after a date
certain, for an election that would not take place for months, for a
responsibility or office that would not commence until 1 January, 2011.
The guidance ICANN Counsel offered was that status at the date certain
Therefore, something as certain as a prospective interest a week in
the future, or the prospective lack of interest, again, a mere week in
the future, was not relevant to the issue of eligibility to stand for
I suggest that your approach is too speculative, though I'm not
entirely happy with the guidance ICANN Counsel offered me only a few
weeks ago, which is at least curable by revised SOI/DOI as material
interests become actual rather than prospective.