Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Mr. Smith,

I may well have disagreement with some of your post but I believe the thrust is
110% accurate.  I have the great pleasure of dealing with many foreign
developing countries.  The good ones are emerging market countries, and their
biggest problem is decemination of knowledge, both from infrastructure and
cultural perspective. In that ICANN is in it's infancy as an organization it is
suffering the same growing pains. So do many growing churches.
    Knowledge is power and power is knowledge is the rule that must be
understood and then shared and made moot because everyone has access to the
knowledge/power. I beg you to join with us working in the WG-REVIEW to create a
true Outreach, Education and Multilingualism structure and funding to help
guide/lead ICANN through this difficult time period.
     I also take this post to beg for a continuance of that list for the effort
toward this most worthy endeavor. Mr. Smith you are right on the money. It is
time to stop pointing out what is wrong and join the crowd (or at least a few on
the corner) in trying to take positive measures to make it better.

Sincerely,




Russ Smith wrote:

> > and the "bottom-up, consensus-based process" we use
> >to arrive at recommendations for global internet policy.
>
> ...
> >i would hope that those on this list realize
> >that the media is watching (or at least reading).
>
> As soon as you hear the term "bottom-up, consensus-based process" in a
> serious tone when speaking about ICANN it is clear that the rest of the
> interview will be nothing more than rhetoric.  That is why you have all
> these arguments and banning on this list.  I do not believe anybody really
> believes that statement and as soon as you hear someone talking like that
> there is no point in arguing because you are arguing with a politician who
> has an agenda rather than a legitimate discussion.
>
> That is also why there is so much discussion about ICANN and the rules about
> being a California corporation.  People are looking for law, rules, etc. to
> try to get information from ICANN because they will not take the
> responsibility, or put out the effort, to have an open process.
>
> It is too much trouble, people just want to slow us down, they don't need to
> know, people will try to stop what we are doing, yada yada yada.  One of
> most unbelievable statements was mad by Andrew McLaughlin to the Politech
> mailing list:
>
> "I'm always amazed by the amount of misreporting & hyperventilation about
> domain name stuff -- this one's no exception."
>
> I thought it was Mr. McLaughlin's job to make sure this stuff doesn't
> happen!  I have made numerous requests to ICANN for detailed explanations
> about how the various panels and committees were chosen and even asked to
> review tax returns which they are required to provide me by law.  I have
> never received any of the information I requested.  If this would have been
> done by the Dept. of Commerce rather than ICANN I would be able to get at
> least some of the information via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
> ICANN doesn't even come close to meeting the FOIA standard (which is not
> that good to begin with).
>
> I believe it is ridiculous to try blame ICANN's dismal public image on a
> bunch of wild posting on this list.  When ICANN does get a complaint about
> their image they should be able to point to information sources (such as
> their web site) and say, "See, here is the information about the process."
> Instead the attitude is that there are all these troublemakers out there and
> we have to keep everything secret or they will slow us down (and, of course,
> we know we are right).

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html