Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] my posting to the ICANN forum

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

Danny, another agreement on good work

Joop, While the picture will include material which might be mis-used as
fuel to continue to disregard the DNSO, it will be done with the obvious
further disregard for the basic fact that the entire wg-review excercise was
a positive action of presenting problems to be resolved from within, and
solutions or suggested solutions where we could see them.  Even those that
present obvious axes (finely honed, in some cases) were willing to work
within the ICANN framework.  The BoD can only ignore the positive
presentation, including dissenting opinions, if they feel that they can
continue to operate as they have been, and under much closer observation of
USG and and an increasingly aware internet community.  Time will tell, it
may be that they (the powers-that-be behind the current BoD) are willing to
run ICANN into the ground for what they can get in the short term and see
how things can be re-sorted in the next incarnation of ICANN, or whatever
replaces it (should it be rendered impotent, or desolved).  I hope it is not
so.  Web anarchy doesn't sound like fun from my desktop.

Phil King in Butte MT USA

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:31:20 -0500, rob j wrote:

>  Andrew, you say it well, and I echo both of these statements. /R
>  
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Andrew Moulden" <andrew@FoolStop.com>
>  To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
>  Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:59 AM
>  Subject: Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] my posting to the ICANN forum
>  
>  
>  > Joop,
>  >
>  > I commend your openness in making those blunt statements in this and
your
>  > previous posting, and hope that Board members will understand that they
>  > represent an accurate summary of the feelings of many at this point.
>  >
>  > Danny,
>  >
>  > I would like to add my thanks for your comprehensive constituencies
>  report.
>  > It reads easily and communicates clearly the varieties of opinion
>  expressed
>  > and those instances where there was broader agreement. In addition, I
>  would
>  > endorse the main themes of your personal statement.
>  >
>  > Andrew
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > At 00:57 08/03/01 +1300, you wrote:
>  > >Recommendation for an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency
>  > >
>  > >The IDNO has petitioned the Board on 23 April 1999 to approve the
>  admission
>  > >to the DNSO of an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency in
>  principle.
>  > >This is now nearly 2 years ago and no policy response has been
received,
>  > >except by way of an unofficial rejection letter by Esther Dyson and
>  through
>  > >the postings in public fora by Dave Crocker ("the IDNO is not even on
the
>  > >Board's radar screen") and Kent Crispin, who has revealed that the
Board
>  > >lost it's initial inclination to consider an IDNO constituency when it
>  was
>  > >told that it has become a magnet for disgruntled individuals with an
axe
>  to
>  > >grind, or an "anti-ICANN constituency".
>  > >
>  > >There is no question that being rebuffed without given reasons
increases
>  > >the levels of frustration, bitterness and cynicism of those who try to
>  > >participate in good faith.
>  > >The stonewalling is the cause of anti-ICANN feelings in the
constituency
>  > >and it has to be recognized as such.
>  > >To reverse cause and effect is not a basis for good policy.
>  > >
>  > >Personally, I am on the point of giving up on ICANN.
>  > >Perhaps this is better for the IDNO.
>  > >Attempting to participate in ICANN via this "bottom-up" constituency
>  > >formation, has been very costly for me in personal terms.
>  > >
>  > >But as soon as the Board will approve the addition of an Individuals
>  > >constituency to the DNSO, a great deal of frustration will melt away
and
>  > >the members of this constituency will be motivated again to work in a
>  > >positive and constructive way to legitimize the DNSO as a
representative
>  > >body of DNS stakeholders.
>  > >
>  > >The decision is up to the Board and the Board alone.
>  > >
>  > >The Names Council would do well to let its Review task force read and
>  > >summarize the Report on the Constituencies that has come from the WG
>  > >(posted here in this forum) and heed the recommendation of the
WG-Review
>  to
>  > >create a WG specifically dedicated to the formation details of an
IDNHC.
>  > >
>  > >Joop Teernstra LL.M.
>  > >Former bootstrap of the IDNO
>  > >www.idno.org
>  > >--
>  > >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
>  >
>  
>  
>  --
>  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
>  


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/


--
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