I agree, auDA does come up very well in terms of accomplishments through the
panel processes and public comment periods compared to ICANN.

My recent experience on some ICANN committees is more time is spent on
"procedural motions", then on substance (e.g talking about issues relating
to naming and numbering).

The names panel and competition panel processes were as a whole very well
run, by effective chairs and with good support from auDA staff.  The next
big task for the industry is the development of an effective code of
conduct.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:45 AM
> To: dns§auda.org.au
> Subject: [DNS] Comments on ICANN
> 
> 
> This email is quite insightful. It makes the final point that ICANN
> should be there to serve rather than rule the Internet.
> 
> It is interesting to read the "todo" list for ICANN and compare it
> to the way auDA is run. I think auDA comes up very well and is quite
> aligned with Randy's suggestions.
> 
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
200202/msg00242.html

kim

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
author, further information at the above URL.  (335 subscribers.)