Re: [wg-review] [Draft] Review Working Group's Executive Summary

["YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

Hello Chris and all,

Hope you can still read this post through the list.

Can I ask you and others to be more patient and to give NC one more
chance to show how NC can contribute itself in this process?

Those who have felt sick of scam, deceit, manipulation or fradulent process
in the dnso/icann and those who don't want to be used as blinded public who
will be just counted to strengthen icann's authority or dnso's self-illusion
in
various public release, please let us look at brighter side.

"Rome is not made a day!"
We are buidling our own Rome which just has its shaky columns.

If that infrastruture is not strong enough to prop up the whole structure,
we have to change them or add to them to avoid its collapse before it's
too late. We just stepped in and saw this is not going to work out.

The whole issue can be "Do we really want Rome or Moscow?"
It's your choice.

Thanks,
YJ

> To the chair and to all concerned:
>
> I am going to unsubscribe from this list. The process is tainted beyond
any
> reasonable person's belief. Short deadlines are a way to stifle real study
> of the problems presented here and are totally ridiculous. Those who set
> this process up know this and we are fools to be manipuated at their
> pleasure. This group has no power at all to make changes and isn't even
> given enough time to make proper suggestions.
>
> There is no real effort on ICANN's part or the NC's part to get any input
> from the public. There is simply a process put into place to make it
> "appear" as if they sought public opinion. It is a scam. Straght-forward
and
> simple. This process is designed to scam and delude people into thinking
> that ICANN considers what the public wants when reaching their decisions.
>
> As for my own efforts, I refuse to further the deceit by my participation
in
> it. Here we have examples of politics at it's very worst. ICANN is not a
> legitimate nonprofit entity. They have participated in scamming the public
> and the US Government into thinking they want to achieve any fairness for
> the Individual Domain Name Holder or Individual User of the Internet. They
> have represented Big Business, period.
>
> I will continue to fight this fraudulent process on my own through my
> Legislators in the US. Those within this process have underestimated what
> the US Government can do in changing things. The governments of other
> countries already realize this is a scam. The US has been slow to respond
to
> it's own Commerce Department's involvement here. That is not unusual. But
I
> plan to do my best to awaken the sleeping giant.
>
> I would have been the last person to have sought government control or
> intervention on the Internet before a peek into this process. Now I see no
> way to influence real change from within this corrupt system. Therefore my
> attempts will be from outside the current system and my main goal will be
to
> see ICANN bite the dust. The corruption is beyond anything that can be
> remedied by mere bandaid proposals we now discuss.
>
> I am not a stranger to influencing legislation when wrongs of this nature
> occur. I have been involved in efforts before that resulted in legislation
> that benefitted individuals. I know many legislators who take me serious
> enough to sit down and talk with me directly. This is how I choose to try
to
> make the changes necessary. It will also be suggested strongly that
> investigations be conducted into ICANN and other groups to see where
> individual wrongdoing has occurred. I suspect many are receiving benefits
> from Corporations that influence the decisions they have been making.
>
> I also plan to alert the media to all of my own efforts as well as to this
> process and the limited way in which ICANN garners public participation.
> This has been no accident. This has been carefully done to discourage not
to
> encourage participation by individual users. They have been around long
> enough and have enough resources to have better public participation. A
> first year college student who just took his/her first class would have
done
> a better job at PR than has been done as far as gaining more public
> involvement, yet the PR done to make it appear so has been expert. That
> alone shows it has been orchestrated this way.
>
> I am not scared of being sued or harassed by them. I state for the record
> that ICANN has worked to defraud the public and at very best this effort
has
> been unethical. Illegal activities may have taken place as well by the
very
> Board Members who are supposed to look out for everyone's interests. There
> are those on the NC and other entities that may have also worked to
achieve
> the same fraudulent appearance. The whole process is far from the
> transparent process it should be.
>
> The OPIW is now going to begin a campaign to shine a spotlight on these
> wrongdoings. This is only the beginning. Anyone interested in joining me
in
> this effort is welcome to do so. The only thing I am interested in is
> Individual Internet User's Rights, not just those with Domain Names. The
> Internet was the first chance many small and first time businesses have
had
> in many years to compete with the Big Corporations. Through the use of
> generic domain names, this was starting to happen. The Corporations have
> used their influence with ICANN to steal those domain names on their
behalf.
> That is just one of the issues that will be addressed.
>
> For those who choose to remain part of this process and to attempt to
change
> it from within, I applaud your efforts and wish you luck. I will always be
> receptive to personal emails from those on this list who wish to discuss
the
> issues, but reading the drivel posted by those here who think this process
> is working just fine is wasting my time. The fact they think people stupid
> enough to believe their hogwash and believe they are not lining thier own
> pockets makes them the ones who look ridiculous and stupid. That coupled
> with the fact that it has been stated that the members of the NC should be
> allowed to participate in a review that could affect the very existence or
> nonexistence of the NC itself shows that self-interest and possible
> self-dealing would be acceptable. That again is at the very least,
unethical
> and a conflict of interest. I'm not suggesting they not be allowed to read
> the list or respond to questions directed at them, but the fact that some
> have disrupted the proceedings here and wasted time as Ken Stubbs began
> doing in the beginning, again shows they have no respect for individual
> opinions or efforts and are only concerned about the interests of those
that
> pay them.
>
> The fact they use this unproductive antique email method of garnering
public
> opinion also shows their effort to discourage participation. It was
> suggested here many times that we switch to a forum to better communicate.
> It has been ignored just like our opinion will be when they get back to
the
> "Club". They will pick through all of the work done here and find one or
two
> very small things they can comply with that won't affect their efforts to
> control the Internet, then will announce to the press they have made
drastic
> changes the public has said they wanted. Even though their are less than
150
> subscribers on this list, they will brag as to how they are considering
> public opinion and striving to achieve transparency of process. The fact
> there are less than 150 on this list can only go to prove their efforts to
> suppress public opinion. Claiming they could not get more participation is
a
> lie. They could. They don't want it. They only want the appearance of
having
> it.
>
> It was suggested they could subscribe people to the list through their ISP
> or through their Registrars. That won't happen because those are two of
the
> entities that HAVE Board representation. Having an Individual's
Constituency
> is not to their advantage, nor is having the opinion of individuals be the
> foremost consideration when ICANN's BoD makes decisions.
>
> I apologize for the long post and also apologize that I will be deleting
the
> rest of the groups messages without reading the thoughtful comments you
have
> posted here. I simply am fed up with this whole process. As I said before,
> my fight will continue and I will continue to support those trying to make
> real changes. In other words, Kent. You wouldn't be one of those I
support,
> just in case you didn't understand what I meant in my last sentence. Your
> posts have been self-serving and toward the status quo and I doubt by
> reading what you have written that you have ever considered individual's
> rights worth considering and probably haven't experienced individual
thought
> very often.
>
> As for Miss Park, I wish you luck. They don't seem to take you very
> seriously. I sympathize with your efforts to reach them. Personally I
think
> you have truly tried to concern yourself with these issues and do wish
some
> changes to be made. I hope you can achieve what you are trying to achieve.
>
> I think an alliance with the Alternate or Inclusive roots and the ccTLDs
> would be very successful regardless of what the opinions are from ICANN
> groups. We'll see if that can be achieved. ICANN isn't concerned for other
> country's rights to prosper any more than they are for individuals.
>
> Good night and good luck to all.
>
> Good luck to all who continue to try this from the inside.
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


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