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

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

Would you care to help me put said cogent thoughts into a posture usable in
suggestions for constituencies and one for Outreach.  Do you have a better idea
concerning how to get the job done here?  Your input is appreciated.

Derek Conant


Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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