I believe that all parties interested in the future and direction of the DNS should
participate in or with ICANN and its supporting organizations. ICANN is well positioned
which demands this participation and I believe that ICANN can use all of the help it can
get if it is willing to change its current way of doing things.
I believe that ICANN and its supporting organizations must demonstrate to the
international Internet community that ICANN's special interests are not, and will not
be, the final objective regardless of any public opposition or public participation.
I believe that for ICANN to gain real international support, ICANN and its supporting
organizations must allow international representatives at all levels in the ICANN
decision and policy making processes.
A topic being discussed in this wg-review is the matter of multi-lingual issues. I see
the topic as a productive one, however, I also see ICANN demonstrating the need for
moneys to fund such a concept. If ICANN and its supporting organizations really had the
international Internet community on its side, ICANN would not have the problem of
multi-lingual issues. I believe that people from the international Internet community
would step forward and freely devote there resources if they believed in and trusted the
ICANN process. I do not believe that the international Internet community will buy
ICANN's current way of doing things regardless of the resources spent on multi-lingual
issues. I do not believe that ICANN will be able to compete with the many international
organizations that will spell-out ICANN's self-serving conduct.
ICANN must engage and demonstrate real change and allow international representation to
play a key role in its decision and policy making processes to gain support from the
international Internet community. Without this change or something new, we are all only
spinning our wheels here.
Eric Dierker wrote:
> I think this is a correct assessment. But I add: and continue to participate in
> ICANN.
>
> Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
> > http://www.dnsga.org
> >
> > Maybe the international Internet community, and more specifically ccTLD
> > representatives, need to participate in a new organization wholly separate from
> > ICANN?
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > I bow to your wisdom and Greg's analysis of how we can accomplish the most good.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Joanna Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric wrote:-
> > > > Don't you think that perhaps our input may help them in the task. The
> > > > extraordinary support from this group regarding addressing the issues of
> > > > multi-lingualism should at least let them know they have a wide base of
> > > > support
> > > > to come up with solutions. Also it will give people a heads up as to what
> > > > likely antagonists positioning will be, something I would be most grateful
> > > > for.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand I would like to know where in Mr. Burton's categories this
> > > > thread belongs.
> > > >
> > > > [Joanna] I just think we could save time if we knew what the ccTLD's want
> > > > first, and in particular, from this WG.
> > > > Hello ccTLDs, do you have any position papers to clarify the issues for us?
> > > >
> > > > > YJ Park wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello members,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you read, Bill asked not to cross post wg-review message to
> > > > > > cctld-discuss list. Please keep this in mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have focused "Language Divide" and "Translation Cost" in
> > > > > > ICANN process. As you may know, ccTLD is going to have a
> > > > > > meeting in Hawaii to figure out what their future should be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since ccTLD constituency is in the DNSO structure at this juncture,
> > > > > > it might be more productive to discuss bigger picture for WG-Review's
> > > > > > recommendation to the Names Council.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. [DNSO Structure Discussion] ccTLD should be in the DNSO?
> > > > > > 2. If not, what could be the potential model
> > > > > > 3. [NET Sovereignty] If so, what kind of relations should there
> > > > > > be between ccTLD and ICANN
> > > > > > 4. What kind of relations among ccTLD vs ICANN vs GAC
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > :So with this in mind just what sort of relations exist at this time?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not comfortable with discussing what would be the appropriate model
> > > > for
> > > > > ccTLDs, when they, themselves, have not yet determined what their future
> > > > > should be. I would have thought we should wait for a proposal to come from
> > > > > Hawaii, then discuss the merits.
> > > > > Joanna
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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