[wg-review] My Reply to WG-Review Comments

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

This will serve to answer certain of the wg-review members' comments
directed at me.

I represent efforts to change DoC policy and the current ICANN model.

I am in Washington, DC working effectively with lawmakers everyday and
this is the only way one will efficiently induce positive and productive
change here.  I will work with anyone who will assist in efforts to
build a better global DNS.  The immediate change that is needed is that
international Internet constituency representatives should play key
roles in the control and management of the DNS.

The wg-review group apparently does not want to address matters
regarding international Internet constituency representatives playing
key roles in the control and management of the DNS.  However, the
wg-review group complains of a lack of international support.

Upon reviewing a number of recent email comments from the wg-review
group, I see complaints from the wg-review group regarding my point of
view, opinions and comments, and I see complaints from the wg-review
regarding the work of the DNSGA.

Those of you in the wg-review group who cannot take the heat regarding
opinions of ICANN, lack of international support, and the current
management model affecting the DNS, should look at your own resultless
organizational efforts and comments concerning ICANN before putting down
a contributor with your negative comments and placing yourselves on a
pedestal.

All that the wg-review group has appeared to do here is to qualify an
ICANN directive to earmark $200,000 to fund the wg-review group, of
which said group currently does not appear to be capable of
accomplishing anything productive, whatsoever.  This is apparent through
the inability of the handful of wg-review participants to set a simple
teleconference.  This is apparent through the wg-review group attempts
to move forward on agendas that have not been crystallized or properly
debated in the available forum.  This is apparent through certain of the
the wg-review comments designed to chastise comment contributors who do
not agree with certain wg-review group members' narrow or one-sided
agendas.

Certain wg-review group members apparently fail to realize that if ICANN
policy is a problem, then ICANN policy should be addressed and changes
proposed.  However, it appears that certain of the wg-review group
members want topics and agendas to go only their way, without opposition
and without addressing ICANN policy problems.  This is also the
fundamental problem with ICANN.

Certain wg-review group members apparently fail to realize that if the
international Internet community not participating is an issue (and it
certainly is and issue), then chastising comment contributors only makes
matters worse.  No one will be willing to work or participate with an
organization that chastises its comment contributors.

I have presented many positive comments and suggestions through the
wg-review forum.  I have also stated comments that tell the ICANN story
as I see it and how it is.

Derek Conant

--
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