<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Recent Reform Comments
In comments just recently posted to the ERC Forum, the ISPCP Chairman Tony
Holmes makes the following statement: "I believe its appropriate to emphasise
that there's a strong view within the ISPCP that ICANN and the ERC in
particular are just not listening to the major issues of concern which have
been raised."
http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/implementation/msg00028.html
How many times have we heard this refrain from every single representative
body in the ICANN process?
Once more, the RIRs have written: "The RIRs assumed the reform and evolution
process would be implemented as an open dialog between ICANN and its
stakeholders. To date, this has not been the case. From the perspective of
the RIRs, the process used by ICANN has been less open and more rigid, with
little by way of feedback that would be typically associated with a dialog."
"As an attempt to engage in dialogue with stakeholders in order to reach a
shared understanding of appropriate and necessary evolution and reform
measures any objective judgment of the process would conclude that it falls
far short of an effective, open, inclusive and fair process."
http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/implementation/msg00020.html
What all of these groups have in common is a profound revulsion toward the
top-down implementation being forced upon them by the Illusion of Reform
Committee. Apparently they have all failed to grasp a key point -- ICANN
doesn't care. ICANN will continue to draw from their reserve of hackneyed
platitudes and will once more proceed to issue statements such as: "while
the Blueprint may not satisfy everyone, it provides the right foundation on
which ICANN can build for the future."
It matters little to the Board that their "foundation" should be resting upon
the consent of the governed. Time after time they have shown complete and
utter disregard for the community consensus, their decision on WLS being but
the latest example. But let them go ahead and build their throne of
bayonets, the passage of time will prove that they won't be able to sit on it
for very long.
The Department of Commerce acknowledged that at the moment, "no obvious
alternative exists for long-term DNS management", but they also noted that
"if ICANN does not make significant progress on the transition tasks,
alternatives will be identified and considered." I look forward to working
with others in the community to establish an alternative to ICANN. The ICANN
contracts should be re-bid, and another private entity should take over the
coordination of the DNS.
As long as ICANN seeks to be a commander instead of a coordinator this
alternative must be pursued.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|