Thomas Roessler : "If this General Assembly passes, by vote, a declaration that just
suggests a re-bid of ICANN functions, then this GA has expressed its
distrust in the ICANN structures"
What basis is there for NOT distrusting ICANN and its structures?
ICANN has operated with demonstrable lack of openness over an extended period.
ICANN has abandoned the interests of ordinary consumers on various occasions.
ICANN has presided over fraud which has been inadequately addressed.
ICANN continues to accredit and promote registrars who are demonstrably fraudulent.
ICANN has operated opaquely and with a lack of responsiveness when challenged to address
the detail of sincere concerns.
ICANN has chosen to repudiate its own system of elected public representatives.
ICANN has marginalised its own public forums as "a joke" even though they have generated
substantive information acknowledged by the internet public.
ICANN has produced inept agreements resulting in fiasco and fraud in the New TLD roll-outs.
ICANN has failed to insist that their agreements are implemented.
ICANN is increasingly mistrusted and discredited by groups outside its own operations.
Besides, if ICANN is SO trustworthy, what fear should they have of a re-bid?
If ICANN believes in openness and transparency, then why not accept open votes on issues
which their own "structures" can carry out?
So, Thomas Roessler : "If this General Assembly passes, by vote, a declaration that just
suggests a re-bid of ICANN functions, then this GA has expressed its
distrust in the ICANN structures"... yes I think that's about right... AND ABOUT TIME TOO!
And Thomas Roessler: "More importantly, is the GA even the right
place to declare ICANN process bankrupt? Jamie: Why do you want that
this resolution is passed by the GA? Why don't you try to make your
points by channels outside the ICANN structure, if you believe that this
structure is so flawed that it should not be reformed, but abandoned?"
Why not BOTH? Why not make the points INSIDE and OUTSIDE ICANN?
If the points are valid, they are valid when expressed INSIDE icann and they're valid when they're
expressed outside ICANN. What you really seem to mean is: this motion is embarrassing to ICANN
and I need to discredit it because it actually dares to challenge ICANN's authority. But the point is,
ICANN has no real authority without the representation of the Internet public, and if ordinary members
choose to challenge ICANN and question the way they operate, then that is exactly their right so to do.
That's what openness, transparently, representation, and accountability mean. Freedom to express dissent.
Freedom to ask for the WHOLE corrupt system to be investigated and challenged and put right.
Thomas again: "In particular, this means that the resolution suggested by Jamie is
entirely inappropriate if we want to exercise any influence on the
reform process"...
...and if you think the reform process is a "con"? If you think the motives for the reform process are dishonest?
If you think the reform process is the Board of Directors agenda (which it demonstrably is!)...
... then isn't it reasonable to seek a re-bid, rather than merely rely on a reform process?
Thomas! Just suppose a group of GA members have NO CONFIDENCE in the leadership of ICANN...
Aren't they then acting entirely reasonably in trying to bring matters to a head?
Why should they - many of them representatives of the general public - kowtow to ICANN...
...and its reform process... and other people's agendas?
Haven't people got the right to challenge?
Haven't people got the right to vote?
Is ICANN a dictatorship?
Please! Motion is proposed. Discuss. Call a vote. Discuss some more. Vote.
As a Brit who believes in democracy and the representation of ordinary people,
I just don't see what's wrong with people asking for a vote.
What has ICANN got to fear from such a vote?
Please tell me that.
With kind regards
Richard Henderson