Re: [ga] ICANN Staff Shenanigans

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

May I suggest, Ross, that a coalition against this seetlement agreement is
exactly what you and we and others should be envisaging: I would like to see
a coalition made up of Registrars, other industry participants, the
prospective Internet Users constituency, the ALAC, and also representatives
of ccTLDs who may feel that ICANN's unilateralism is too US-centric and
lacks the orderly process and consultation and bottom-up consensus on which
ICANN is supposed to be based?

May I suggest that Vancouver would be one in a range of good platforms for a
coalition to present its case, and that this and other actions should be
promoted to the media to call into question ICANN's unilateral approach to
its mission: accountable only to the DoC of one country, slanting its
choices and decisions in favour of a specific US company, who has "somehow"
persuaded ICANN to accept for consumers a contract which underwrites annual
price increases, when what was surely needed was an open and transparent
process of bidding designed to secure the lowest possible prices for
consumers, with due time and respect for ICANN's various constituencies to
participate - not a "decision" more or less presented as a fait accomplis.

I suggest that the Vancouver meeting would be an excellent venue for some
"open and transparent" statements, telling ICANN staff exactly what there
role is, as *servants* of the world community (yes, that's the whole world)
and releasing a coalition statement for the world's press which expresses
what is thought of this Verisign 'done deal' and the way it was achieved...

...if, in the end, it is forced through against the best interests of so
many people.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson
www.atlarge.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 7:15 PM
Subject: [ga] ICANN Staff Shenanigans


> Ross Rader writes:
>
> "At the same time, I've been told privately that ICANN
> staff are making it difficult for those that don't
> support the proposed Verisign settlement agreement to
> use the ICANN meeting in Vancouver as a platform.
> Apparently ICANN staff involved in planning the
> meeting aren't too keen on give a booth to a coalition
> lobbying against the agreement unless the coalition
> provides ICANN staff with a list of members.
>
> Sounds like a precursor to an inquisition if you ask
> me.
>
> Why is the ICANN staff so intent on making it
> impossible for its supporters to stay supporters? It
> seems that as every day goes by, they are
> strengthening the case for moving DNS oversight to a
> multinational organization."
> http://code.byte.org/blog/_archives/2005/11/15/1406564.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com