[ga] Recent Reform Comments

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

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@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