Re: [ga] Verisign vs. ICANN: More at Stake than Sitefinder - From CircleID

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

A short two year scan of the history of the deletion of user input, into ICANN is also helpful in putting together a larger picture.
We had a mantra often recited regarding limiting the scope of ICANN's mission.  This however did nothing to help limit that scope.  Instead it was used to bully and show derisiveness in ranks, when it came to those who addressed issues on the fringe of the scope, which ICANN was targeting anyway. (both scope and the ranks)
The ballyhoo cry of limiting the scope of mission has been used effectively to limit a bottoms up/transparent/representative form of "governance" within ICANN and it is now like handing out money for a social program and claiming no effect on policy.
As long as the contributors play within the boundaries as defined by the rules, and the staff and BOD play outside the boundaries and there is no referee then the BOD and staff will win every time.
Can courts be the referee? No they can only be an umpire, courts do not prevent crime, law enforcement does. (oh yea so does morality)
As with groups such as Talibans, Ivy Leagues, and Communists, the only referee can be referendum.  As in the court of public opinion.  And this can only transpire when an effective mechanism is in place which forces the ruling elite to capitulate to the mandate of referendum.  This can be put in place via "peaceful" transitional means as we see in Vietnam, Horrible chaotic rebellious means as in Haiti, intervention as we see in Bosnia and/or Iraq.  
ICANN effectively splintered the representative movement with the "world stakeholder" concept and the abandonment of an active effective GA.  There is currently no mechanism in place to effect a slow and progressive gravitation toward accountability of the ruling elite in the Internet Governance arena.  And as long as we labor under the current technical and free enterprize gaps there will not be.
 
Perhaps the BOD would be wise to hold elections again here in the GA and throw out the appearance of a dotcommoner presence, or at least they could manipulate it as with the passed election of Mr. Roessler and then blame them for problems.
 
 
Sincerely,
eric hdierker



Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Harold and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

Great and very accurate article here:
http://www.circleid.com/article/507_0_1_0_C/

Well done Harold!

Regards,





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster.