multi-lingual issues - Re: [wg-review] no, thank you

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

I can agree with your comment, however, it appeared that participants herein were
not identifying the principal reason why there is a lack of international
interest regarding the subject matter (multi-lingual issues).

I do not want to appear only negative here and I am not one who wastes his time
engaging bad ideas.  I did not see anyone else herein identify the principle
reason why there is a lack of international support regarding the subject
matter.  If we can agree on the principle problem (ICANN policy), then we should
start addressing solutions regarding the lack of international support from
there.

How can anyone here believe that there will be adequate resources for an
international project (i.e. multi-lingual issues) where ICANN policy is to
exclude international participation in the decision and policy making processes
that concern the future of the Internet.  Maybe ICANN has gone as far as it can
go here without significant change to its policy and its self-serving way of
doing things.

I suggest herewith that it be recommended that ICANN surprise everyone and
immediately engage policy that allows the international Internet community and
its representatives to actively participate in the decision and policy making
processes that concern the future of the Internet. Maybe this is the only
solution to the lack of international support problem.  Maybe ICANN should
lighten-up and let go of its old or erroneous ideology and allow the World to
truly come together here.  I think it is time for this to happen.

The multi-lingual issue is an example of a great idea.  However, a great idea
built upon a bad foundation is not efficient and will amount to a lot of wasted
energy.  I suggest herewith that the principle problem (ICANN policy) should be
addressed first and then build from there.


FeedWriter Administration wrote:

> On 10:59 PM 1/17/01, Derek Conant said:
>
>  >I believe that existing forum processes have shown to have little impact on
>  >ICANN final objectives.
>
> One impact they've clearly had is the existence of this WG. Whether we
> accomplish anything in the "final objective" depends at least in part on
> us. You needn't tell us that the DNSO has serious problems - as a group, we
> know that. What we're trying to do is to not only identify problems, but
> address them within this structure. The better quality work we produce, the
> more compelling reasons something needs changing, the more likely it is for
> a recommendation to be adopted.
>
> There are no guarantees, of course. The only sure thing is that if we
> abandon this process in the middle, any change that comes at all will come
> top-down.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> --
> 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