[gnso-ppsc-wg] Re: [gnso-osc-ops] DOI
- To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Re: [gnso-osc-ops] DOI
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:43:31 -0400
Actually less hypothetical than I thought. Writing the DOI convinced me that I
should write the article, and am using the DOI as the introduction to the
article. So at this point, I am writing an article on ICANN/GNSO policy
processes, their development and implementation and may gain some advantage, or
perhaps disadvantage, since advantage comes in both positive and negative
More than anything I am exploring the rules we make, the requirements we put on
people and trying to follow them to their logical conclusions.
On 23 Sep 2010, at 10:04, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 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 was
> 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 election.
> 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.