I agree with your concept here. However I prefer
to leave the negative side to if they do
not on this go around fix it then boom. ICANN must be approched
from within and without
with a carrot and a stick. Instead of thinking of it as possibly
spinning our wheels, I
prefer to think of it as a set-up and giving them enough rope to hang
themselves, if they so
choose.
Derek Conant wrote:
> 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