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

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

Hello Derek,

Can I answer to you as one of a few international participants in ICANN
process since 1999 Berlin ICANN meeting?

I do symapathize with you on "International Participation or Support".
I am willing to contribute myself to it, if it is possible.

Yes, it's not been desirable so far to watch how DNSO/ICANN moves
even how this WG moves from time to time as an international participant
or even as a designated chair by NC in this process as you pointed out.

However, there are several reasons WG members tried to reaffirm
that WG-Review is going to focus on DNSO/ICANN structure rather than
destroy it with a second thought.

1st, it appears that people are not sure whether another trial will be
better
than existing model.

2nd, this WG has been created within the DNSO which is supposed to
"work" on the issues or problems which has been hampering DNSO
functions from constituency to NC since its beginning.

we just finished its first stage to sort out the issues to tackle one by
one.
And many are ready to wrestle with them with focus and expect some
workable solutions to the DNSO in its report.

For the last, if you have different perspectives which you think people
have to know in this list, please do so in a more constructive manner
reminding you that this group is busy with its homeworks.

Therefore, some people might snap at you when they feel they are
interrupted by extra- or bigger- homeworks like another form of governance.

Please, be cooperative and understand the current situation of this group.
Thanks,
YJ

> 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
>
>

--
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