Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> > Anyways, you've made some pretty sweeping indictments of the structure,
> > processes, policy and people that make up ICANN - do us all a favor and
> > quantify some of these allegations. Continuing this discussion without
> > rooting it in fact doesn't seem, to me at least, to be a productive
> > exercise. Unless of course the real exercise is to create the foundation
for
> > an argument that will later attempt to discredit the policy development
> > process to Verisign's advantage - if that's the case, then please carry
on -
> > and don't stumble over those pesky facts that somebody so
inconsiderately
> > left lying around.
>
>
> Might it be more productive to listen to what is said rather than who
> is saying it?

My point was that what was being said was inaccurate and self-serving. Sort
of speaks to both conditions actually.

>
> I can offer countless examples of how the consensus process within ICANN
is
> largely a sham and I could hardly be considered a fan of Verisign. For
> starters: the founding documents of ICANN, the sweeping bylaw changes that
> have been made, the "clean sheet study" to decide whether or not
> individuals should be represented within ICANN, the UDRP, the board
> squatters, the TLD selection process, ICP3, the list goes on and on and
> on.

Don't confuse the development of consensus policy with "truth" or
"unanimity". What I find intriguing is that what you hold up as failures of
the process, I look to as successes of the process. Context, condition and
perspective all lend to that difference, but regardless, ICANN is hardly the
drastic failure that some might have one believe.

-rwr

--
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