Re: [ga] Motion # 1

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 11:19 PM 10/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>Instead of focusing on such boring things as deleted
>domain name handling

That has been an issue that ICANN has been aware of for
many months. There was near consensus prior to Accra that
a uniform 30 day grace period was a Very Good Thing (I was
one of those not part of that consensus, I'd prefer more
than 30 days; but whatever, rough consensus works for me).

So what has the ICANN braintrust done with that in those
many months? Zilch. Zero. In a word, nothing. But one is
supposed to focus and continue pouring time and effort
down that black hole? Even I'm not that stupid.

>   (and domain hoarding),

Well that one goes back much more than a year. Again there
is near universal consensus that it is a Very Bad Thing.
And ICANN has done, er, um, approximately nothing. And as
near as anyone can tell they will continue to do, er, um,
approximately nothing. But I should spend more time beating
my head against that wall? I haven't got that much more
stupid since my last paragraph.

>  the WLS proposal,

The proposal that received near universal consensual
opposition (other that from Veri$ign sockpuppets)?
So it's dead right? No, it's now winding its way
through ICANN's byzantine maze and will presently
reappear in new and improved form. It will still
receive near universal opposition, but it will carry
the patina of having been through a 'process' so will
be allowed to proceed. But I should work hard to be
part of that patina? Sorry, still not that stupid.

>whois bulk access?

Another non-starter amongst just about everyone for
well more than a year. So is it dead and gone? Nope.
It's getting worse. So again, if I expend time and
energy on this it will magically reverse direction,
right? Sigh. I'm done repeating myself.

>Quite frankly, if such topics are too uninteresting
>even for the part of the public which claims to follow
>ICANN issues, there is no reason at all for that public
>to participate in ICANN policy-making. I still refuse to
>believe that.

They aren't too uninteresting for the likes of me, a member
of the public who claims to follow ICANN issues. The problem
is that, as your own examples show, there is no place at all
for the public to participate in ICANN policy-making. Assuming
that there was, it would be studiously ignored. I still refuse
to believe that anyone (credible) can argue otherwise. -g

--
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