<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
Hello Sophia,
Just a quick reply to confirm that my suggestion was about working
groups in general, rather than any particular working group.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
________________________________
From: Sophia B [mailto:sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2007 2:04 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: URG: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
Dear Bruce,
The issue of 'including people' in the IDN-WG was again raised
at our WG meeting today, alongside the topic of making a mandatory
procedure to submit statement of interest to support the standardization
of WG procedures across the board. I presume it is within the same
principle and spirit that we agreed to get people on board of all WGs as
'observers', i.e recent additions to the RN-WG etc.., also as an interim
criteria, until perhaps one identifies a suitable constituency on GNSO
or at an ICANN SO level.
Towards this end, I am still puzzled that the current issue we
are having (procedural block) towards the IDN-WG, seem to be treated as
an isolated incident to be addressed at the GNSO council level,contrary
to the RN-WG which was determined by the Chair.
Having said that, amongst the person that was vocal today, in
giving this issue of procedural block, an urgent attention was also
Marilyn Cade, who in the past has been very supportive when I insisted
on the formation of WG consising of experts outside GNSO to support t he
policy dialog of IDNs.
Therefore, in the interest of the decision we will be making at
the council level and hopefully resolve at the next council meeting, I
thought it would be fair to share with the whole council the recent
letter of complaint we have received, viz IDN "excluded" group, and also
isolate that the issue of exclusion is NOT to be necessarily recollected
from complaints back in Sau Paulo.
Finally, I do not claim to represent any constituency, as I am
nomcom appontee. However, I do feel the interest of these groups below,
that were forthcoming in writing a letter to you and coping some of us,
represent only a fraction of the larger 'IDN interest groups' that have
been marginilized in the ICANN participation process; which has led me
to treat them like a virtual IDN constituancy group, but one without a
voice.
As such, it would be proper to heed the point that we should not
be making the same mistake of marginalizing the same group in our POLICY
making process, as the outcome of the work of the WG would not be
considered a legitimate and fair process, if we continue with isolating
and/or delaying the process. I have always believed justice delayed
is justice denied.
I wish to also copy this to the IDN-WG for FYI.
Thank you Bruce for expediting this process. I therefore ask
kindly that this issue be put in the agenda in our next council meeting
for the council decision.
Sophia
GNSO Councilor, NomCom
---------------------------------------------
On 24/02/07, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Hello Sophia,
>>> May I inform the above group from Russia and Iran
as well as
others to refer to the above
>> for joining the IDN WG?
Lets just wait for a few days to see if there are any
changes requested
by Council members.
Regards,
Bruce
--------------------------------------
TWO LETTERS Of COMPLAINT TO BRUCE TONKIN (Chair GNSo
Council):
Sophia Bekele <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:52:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Sophia Bekele < sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: Re: Regtime of Russia participation in the
ICANN IDN GNSO policy group.
To: Alexei Sozonov < sozon@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sozon@xxxxxxxxx> >, Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, avri@xxxxxxx,
ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx,
nhklein@xxxxxxx, ross@xxxxxxxxxx, Sophia Bekele
<sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>,
olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx, denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx,
roberto@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx> ,
mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bruce,
I have a suggestion.
It looks like the next bomb may come from IRAN;) These
are some of the groups and others that I have been dialoging with and,
whose concerns I led in the GNSO council in the past.
For the record, I credit Bruce, as Chair of the GNSO
Council for being very supportive by agreeing to put the IDN issues and
the policy development process on the agenda and taking it to the board
for us, so our voices can be heard.
However, it appears that no one followed-up on the
procedures of the gatekeeper of the IDN WG and why, since SaoPaulo. It
is my opinion that ICANN's intention was not to exclude, but there seem
to be an organizational inefficiencies and lack of awareness that
excluded the critical groups of IDN to be ignored. I fact I was hoping
ICANN would have already created the enabling environment for supporting
the critical groups that its need to formulate the IDN policy process.
It may be too strong to suggest that ICANN is
'dysfunctional", in dealing with foreign relations; in that it does not
understand international dialog like the United Nations, due to its
western-centric experiences and views in the past; however, the fact
that we forged with the IDN WG without ensuring an inclusive environment
on its own has given a impression that the gate keeper is also the
poacher .
As such, for lack of mirroring the US foreign policy
dominated by world view of illegitimacy and unfairness, as the 'IDN
constituencies' seem to voice, I strongly recommend Bruce, that we deal
with this urgently at the GNSO Council level , and if we cannot be able
at our level to sort it out and the result is pointing-fingers to the
inter department (i.e bureaucracy) , it may be best to raise it as an
URGENT issue to the board.
So you are aware Bruce, according to the IDN WG priority
topics, we have chosen new gtlds and geopolitical topics as the most
critical IDN issues. There are amost 30 people signed up on the WG,
where only 7-8 actively participate, and groups that want to participate
are not represented. This of course does not reflect on the WG Chair,
who is doing a great job of Chairing, but given the complexities of the
subject matter, I struggle and hunger for the lack of a rich dialog with
people that have the genuine EXPERTISE to construct a credible debate on
IDNs. I say these because I talk with the people that do, and they are
not represented in our WG.
The IDN technology was invented in the East and is being
debated by the West and the people that have INVENTED the technologies
and are ACTIVE in the market are not with us or are not welcomed!.
These people are listening to our dialogs and they want to come on board
on our next meeting, where the critical topic has ee pointed out.! We
should have a mechanism to bring them on board!
Towards this end, I am not sure if the final output of
this WG will also be considered a legitimate and fair view of the IDN
debate for our Lisbon Agena. ICANN needs to address these issues
urgently in its pyramid world, the rest of the world is getting flat!
Mr. Chairman, I look for your continued eadership,
support and urgent help!
Respectfully,
Sophia
GNSO Council
Alexei Sozonov < sozon@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sozon@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Dear Bruce,
We would like to bring back the issue
regarding our participation in the ICANN IDN discussions process.
Let me briefly remind our case.
1. We've contacted you first time on November 7,
2006 when I send an application to join the ICANN GNSO Business
Constituency.
2. In two days we send our application to join
GNSO Business Constituency - and it was accepted.
We met all the criterias publicly announced
by ICANN for GNSO Commercial and Business Constituency.
3. I was interviewed by phone later and was told
that everything was fine and work was in progress.
4. Then silence... We've send a letter to Gray,
BC secretariat saying that: " we've sent an application to join the
ICANN GNSO Business Constituency
almost 2 months ago (sao paulo event had passed
already) - no response..."
5. Then... we've got response at the end of
December - "We regret to inform you that according to the above criteria
the Credentials
Committee has recommended your application does
not go forward." -
- BUT this criteria DID NOT match
pre-established public criteria announced by ICANN for GNSO Commercial
and Business Constituency in the website.
And we are not qualified for any other
constituency!
It is just not fair and not legitimate - and
this is a reason why we're bringing it back.
Looks like somebody doesn't want Russians to
participate :)
This is, despite the fact that our company,
Regtime of Russia ( www.regtime.net <http:///> www.webnames.ru
<http:///> ) is the largest independent private domain name reseller of
ICANN domains in Russia (.com, .ru and .info etc.) and for many years
the fastest growing one in Russia (as I mentioned before, since 2001 ,
we're selling ICANN domains from MelbournIT among others).
We've been selling some 17 different gtlds
and cctlds, including Verisign's Cyrillic .com names for many years.
We've been attending ICANN meetings since
2000.
Our company is a joint venture with the
Russian Chamber of Commerce which today is headed by Former Prime
Minister of Russia - Primakov.
With our expertise we have an advisory power
for the President's Administration and the Government .
We don't know if Eastern Europe at all
(total of perhaps 500Million population) exists on this IDN committee -
again, it seems that nobody wants us
(Russia - Cyrillic speaking 150 Million
population) there! How come?... Is it another example of double
standards we have???
Dear Bruce ,
originally we'd been asked (and still thank her
for that) by Sophia Bekele why don't we join ICANN GNSO process.
Nobody in fair and legitimate world has
anticipated any changes in pre-established and announced public criteria
which been done during the process.
So, here again we state that we want to
participate in ICANN GNSO policy group.
We do understand that majority of meetings
are done already but we'd like to participate al least in the next one
Facing all this difficulties we are not
surprised the news we read before about how they solved IDN in China.
Best Regards,
Alexei Sozonov
Regtime.net <http://regtime.net/>
Office: +1-604-9839233
Cell: +1-604-7739204
-
Shahram Soboutipour < ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
wrote:
From: "Shahram Soboutipour" < ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
CC: "'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Alistair Dixon'" <
Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
< ross@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx> >,
"'Olof Nordling'" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>,
"'Denise Michel'" < denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>,
"'Roberto Gaetano'" < roberto@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx> >,
"'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
< avri@xxxxxxx <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx> >,
<ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>,
< nhklein@xxxxxxx <mailto:nhklein@xxxxxxx> >,
"'Sophia Bekele'" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>,
"' GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
Subject: why Karmania Media was regected from being
involved in ICANN commitee?
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:54:57 +0330
Dear Mr. Bruce Tonkin
I would like to take this opportunity to remind you on
my request in involving ICANN committees and the process happened until
I got the unacceptable result of REJECTION:
1. on Nov 7th 2006 I sent my request to you, and
you answered me in 1 day asking me to first become a member of a GNSO
constituency and you also suggested me to request for BC membership.
2. I filled out the BC membership application form
on Nov 9th and sent it to the BC secretariat (Mr. Gary Hill), and also
sent you a letter informing you that I have started the process.
3. On the same day the BC secretariat asked me some
questions to find out whether I have the criteria or not and I sent them
the answers.
4. on Nov 11th I had a phone call at a time I think
was midnight in US, asking me several questions about me and those whom
I have relation with !! in IDN field etc. which some of them were realy
strange since I couldn't find any relation between his questions and the
BC criteria on involving with the constituency. He said that there is no
problem and the process will take apprx 1-2 weeks. Unfortunately I don't
remember his name. I sent a mail to the BC secretariat asking about this
strange phone call, but the BC secretariat had NO NEWS about any phone
calls!!
5. I had another mail sent to the BC secretariat on
Nov 17th asking about the process but no news until I got a mail on Nov
25 th asking me some new questions regarding the type of my business etc
which I did answer again.
6. Then every thing was shut-down and I had no news
from the BC secretariat although I sent several emails asking about the
process. So after a period of 20 DAYS!! I was really upset on the type
of the actions done on my request, so I sent a mail asking them to
describe me about the delay.
7. After 4 days (Dec 20th 2006) I got a mail
describing the reasons I was rejected on this application.
It is really a super question for me that if a
for-profit agency working on internet technology does not match the BC
criteria and also is not a registry or registrar, then how can it join
ICANN? And where can my position be?
My company is a pioneer in domain name registration area
and has a 6 year experience in the field. We do have a market share of
more than 90% of south-east of Iran. Thanks to our deep research on the
Persian IDNs technology, now Karmania Media has 2 members (of 6) in the
Iranian WG of Persian domains under authorization of the Iranian High
Council of IT which is the main decision making center of IT in the
government.
The total number of Persian speaking people is more than
150 million in the world and among this, Iran has the main power (in
science, technology and even money) to affect the language between other
related countries (Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Armenia etc...). We have an
internet population of 21 Million Persian speaking people and the main
society who writes Right-to-Left, so how can I be participated on the
decisions made in ICANN regarding my language?
I think no decision can be good without participation of
its beneficiaries, and I think this is the logic of ICANN.
So why some men are acting against ICANN policies?
Finnaly I take this opportunity in showing my interest
in being involved the decisions made by ICANN on IDNs, since I think
this can be my logical right as a Persian language speaking man who has
worked on the business/technology of Persian IDNs for several years.
Regards,
Shahram Soboutipour
President and CEO
Karmania Media
Tel: +98 341 2117844,5
Mobile : +98 913 1416626
Fax: +98 341 2117851
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|