Re: [ga] ICANN Board unanimously approves .biz/.info/.org registry agreements by 13-0

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Veni,

I and others on this list have opinions.  We put
forward reasonable argumentation in support of those
opinions.  Yet when the ICANN states their opinion on
a matter such as the .biz, .info and .org contracts,
it offers no argumentation in support of the
conclusion.  It is a mantra, "Resolved that..."

If the Board actually gave a damn about the community
it purportedly serves, it would clearly articulate the
justifications behind its decisions (especially when
public comment is running 99 to 1 against adoption of
the proposed contract language).  

All I can infer from your recent decision is that
ICANN maintains that it must have additional revenue,
so the contracts will be approved (with minor token
changes) so that the revenue stream can continue to
flow.  

Don't expect me to believe that the prospect of
unchecked yearly registry price increases is actually
in the public interest.  



--- Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny,
> as usual (and very much in confirming what I just
> wrote), you have an
> opinion, and you state it.
> It sounds like a mantra, "What I say is right,
> because it's true". Or
> "What I say is true, because it's right".
> 
> That's why nothing happens, because by insulting
> people, you just push
> them away. Then, even when you make a good event,
> like the one about
> Whois in NY, it's being lost in the waterfall of
> words.
> 
> veni
> 
> On 12/8/06, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > As usual, those that occupy seats on the Board (or
> > former Board members) have a real problem
> > understanding what is meant by "public interest"
> > (they're too busy focusing on their own
> organizational
> > self-interest that takes priority over the public
> > good).
> >
> > They also have no grasp whatsoever on who
> represents
> > that public interest within ICANN (which, I
> suppose,
> > is understandable in view of the fact that ICANN
> > formally shut down the only body that allowed
> members
> > of the public to aggregate and to elect their own
> > leadership -- the DNSO General Assembly).
> >
> > When you deliberately exclude the public in such
> > fashion and eliminate all publicly elected
> directors
> > from the governing Board, you reap the wrath of
> the
> > community and the bashing continues unabated.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > At 02:18 PM 08.12.2006 '?.'  -0500, kidsearch
> wrote:
> > > >I have to agree. But it is not unexpected. The
> > > ICANN Board has
> > > >absolutley no regard for the public wishes or
> > > benefit. Yes, Veni,
> > > >since the vote was unanimous, obviously you are
> > > included in that.
> > >
> > > It's good you mention that. It also makes a lot
> of
> > > sense to see who
> > > of the directors / former directors reads the
> least
> > > ;), and you know that.
> > >
> > > However, now that I am not on the Board, I am
> more
> > > free to talk, too.
> > > There have always been people bashing ICANN for
> one
> > > or another
> > > decision. Can you define what you mean by
> "public
> > > wishes or benefit"?
> > > Is the GA list representing the "public wishes
> or
> > > benefit"? Or it's
> > > the GNSO council? Or someone else?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Veni Markovski
> > > http://www.veni.com
> > >
> > > check also my blog:
> > > http://blog.veni.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
> beta.
> > http://new.mail.yahoo.com
> >
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com