Re: [registrars] Fwd: Press Release of 26/03/2004, United Nations ICT Task Force

[elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

For greater clarity, my comments to Eric were relative. I have asked 
numerous people in numerous forums who complain about ICANN to provide 
me with a model for governance that is more transparent and more open 
and could be used as an ideal for ICANN to move toward.
The only answer I have ever received in maybe ten times I asked this was 
one person who suggested the IETF. I would differ in substance with this 
on numerous grounds, the most important of which is that the IETF (which 
I think is quite appropriate for its subject matter) deals with narrow 
technical issues and if you do not bring a technical view to the 
discussion you are not part of it. Full stop.
Anyways, Eric didn't answer either. So the challenge stands......

Regards

Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:

> Happy day-before-April-Fools everyone,
>
> After the amazing 11-0-1 vote on the WLS issue by the BoD on the 6th,
> Elliot came by to buck me up over lunch on the theory that ICANN is a
> pretty wonderful, democratic, transparent organization. Milage varies.
>
> The United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force
> (ITU) met a few days ago in New York. The press release is at this URL:
> http://www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/showdoc.pl?id=1338
>
> What caught my eye was this gem:
>
> 	Various private-sector participants reminded the Forum
> 	that if it works don't fix it, that the best governance
> 	is the least governance, and that ICANN was making good
> 	progress in becoming more transparent and inclusive.
>
> There was no mention of private-sector participants having any other
> view on the subject.
>
> If there was "least", and therefore "best" governance, Verisign would be
> the unified registrar/registry for com/net/org, and there wouldn't be any
> new TLDs, and a "Registrar" Constituency would not exist.
>
> The evidence of "good progress in becoming more transparent and inclusive" 
> has managed to escape me, for instance I've no idea why any member of the
> BoD voted the way they all (but one) did on the WLS question. Which of the
> three basic theories swayed them? That VGRS is more moral? That WLS has
> more value? That ICANN was contractually obligated?
>
> The words "competition" and "monopoly" do not appear in the press release.
>
> Suggestions anyone? Off-list is fine.
>
> Happy end-o-March,
> Eric
> USA Webhost/Wampumpeag

--
Elliot Noss
Tucows Inc.
416-538-5494
enoss.blogware.com