Re: [wg-review] Multilingulaism - Should ICANN Collapse? *Re: Outreachof ICANN? Re: [wg-review] Re: [cctld-discuss] Comments on review...

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

As to your positive comments and input well done!  Would you mind putting
these cogent thoughts into a posture usable  in suggestions for
constituencies and one for Outreach.

As far as including strong language within this report you can view my
comments to date.  I do not like the process of sending easy language where
it will be pared down to easier language, but alas that is the art of
consensus, therefore I like reporting the voting poles.

I believe the constituency bases should be changed to include the entire
base for election of all board members and NC members.  I believe that
groups such as yours should have a constituency, if it has the numbers for
support.  On the day the Berlin wall was falling I flew over the U.S.
Mexican border with men from four countries and low and behold an Iron
curtain was being erected to keep people out.  Clearly openess and inclusion
is a far better model than closed and exclusionary, except for those in
power.  So let us create a scenario where those in power may only remain by
representing the true wishes of the stakeholders.

Sincerely,

Derek Conant wrote:

> I truly do not want to see ICANN collapse.
>
> However, I believe that if ICANN does not understand that it must
> immediately change its self-serving policy that includes changing its
> exclusion of international Internet constituencies from playing key
> roles in the control and management of the Internet, then ICANN may very
> well collapse due to foreign organizations consolidating with their own
> resources to achieve such outcome and chaos against ICANN and the US.
>
> ICANN's multilingulaism and outreach project appears to serve only to
> proliferate ICANN's bad policy worldwide.  I can only conclude that
> ICANN truly believes that it can sell its bad policy to foreign
> governments and international Internet constituencies thereby gaining a
> stronger foothold worldwide.  Then, ICANN appears to bet that it will be
> virtually impossible for the international community to change ICANN's
> way of doing things once it gains a stronger foothold.  This appears to
> have been ICANN's game from the start.
>
> ICANN is not invincible.  It seems that ICANN has convinced the World
> here that it cannot be replaced with a better DNS management model or
> organization to manage the DNS.  I do not believe that ICANN's faith in
> its immortality is very well founded.  The US itself has the control and
> power to replace ICANN with a different organization if the US believes
> that its investment is at risk.  There are provisions in the DoC/ICANN
> agreements for DoC to replace ICANN.  There is no doubt in my mind that
> such mechanisms were put in place for the purpose of salvaging the US
> investment.
>
> ICANN is vulnerable.  ICANN's multilingulaism and outreach project
> appears to be product of the DoC and ICANN realizing that ICANN is
> vulnerable.
>
> ICANN's multilingulaism and outreach project sounds like a good idea on
> its face, however, if you really look at it, ICANN has not made any
> concessions whatsoever that will benefit the international community,
> nor has ICANN demonstrated its willingness to offer international
> Internet constituencies key roles in the control, management and
> integrity of the DNS.
>
> Interested parties should not fall victim to ICANN's tactics of
> deception.  International Internet constituencies should demand policy
> change concessions from ICANN to achieve true international control,
> management and integrity of the DNS.
>
> ICANN should accept propositions of change to its existing policy and
> allow international Internet constituencies to play a key role in the
> control, management and integrity of the DNS.
>
> International Internet constituencies should refuse to contribute money,
> funds and resources and refuse to participate in the furtherance of
> ICANN development until ICANN commits to concessions that will benefit
> international Internet constituencies and their active roles in the
> control, management and integrity of the DNS.
>
> No progress in ICANN's current state seems better than contributing to
> ICANN's erroneous policy that excludes international Internet
> constituencies and their participation in the control, management and
> integrity of the DNS.
>
> I hope ICANN is listening.
>
> Derek Conant
>
> Other relevant comments submitted by Derek Conant are below:
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01983.html
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01990.html
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02027.html
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02032.html
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02053.html
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02078.html
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02079.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

--
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