<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Getting Heard by the ICANN Board
- To: kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>, GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Getting Heard by the ICANN Board
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:55:30 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=SwJWe6vFsozTJ06SLxGl2m7eAzqmiSPMZoh0VFY9SJETfFJkofy2B444mZt/c+1/kbJTXpqbB4ajG5dNNoYCUaUub4ViCLYaSUDBDeCGlFApiKSPdfAxyOq7LMbVMdkv0M5iGDtpXM6fu3iPSuYlzVCoCQKdaKFggD94I2p7tg8=;
- In-reply-to: <004801c720dc$78f737b0$1701a8c0@WebBusiness>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I do not believe there is a problem of bottom, consensus or up. The problem lies in stakeholder. If you define it only as a group or business or association like the at-large has done then ICANN is on the money. If you define stakeholder as including individuals individually then ICANN is an abject failure.
The GA has always been the closest mark to stakeholders as individuals. And now that it refuses to reorganize there is nothing at all. The funny thing about it is that I can find nothing to say it does not exist, yet everyone just accepts that it is defunct.
e
kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Danny, once again an example of the fact that ICANN is bound to a bottom up consensus.
Accountability: ICANN shall continue to develop, test, maintain, and improve on accountability mechanisms to be responsive to global Internet stakeholders in the consideration and adoption of policies related to the technical coordination of the Internet DNS, including continuing to improve openness and accessibility for enhanced participation in ICANN's bottom-up participatory policy development processes.
I see ICANN does not intend to comply with #3 stated above. That or they wish to define the bottom as registries and registrars.
#6 once again enforces that process.
Multi-stakeholder Model: ICANN shall maintain and improve multi-stakeholder model and the global participation of all stakeholders, including conducting reviews of its existing advisory committees and supporting organizations, and will continue to further the effectiveness of the bottom-up policy development processes. ICANN will strive to increase engagement with the Private Sector by developing additional mechanisms for involvement of those affected by the ICANN policies.
I believe this to be why everyone involved refuses to define bottom-up consensus. A definition would mean they would have to adhere to it. No definition means they have no real accountability.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Dierker
To: Dominik Filipp ; GA
Cc: Bret Fausett ; Vittorio Bertola
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:17 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Getting Heard by the ICANN Board
We live in a time when quick fixes or one size fits alls are our expectations. Well things really worthwhile are not such things
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|