[ga] Non-Profit denied NCUC membership to prevent its access to IDN WG
At 17:16 28/02/2007, Danny Younger wrote: On the Council list Sophia Bekele has pointed to letters from Regtime of Russia and from Karmania Media (IRAN) expressing their dissatisfaction with having been denied membership in the GNSO Business Constituency (which they viewed as a conduit for participation in the GNSO IDN Working Group). See http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03256.html Dear Danny, I clearly see this as a troll for me to feed. After all, why not :-)? However, I really do not have much time to dedicate to this topic. You have been instrumental in denying the non-profit organization I chair the possibility to participate in the IDN WG in the same/inferior manner. You raised a series of absurd points in order to prevent our participation in our own NCUC constituency. I spent time documenting them loyally, but I then saw that your RFC 3774 "affinity group" controlled the ExeCom and the NCUC . It is in this way that you purposely prevented us from joining the IDN WG (just as others do at the BC, which they control). The proof? That you yourself can be a member of the NCUC, on behalf of ISOC NY: ISOC Chapters belong to ALAC not to NCUC. Anyway, this is only one of the ways in which ICANN chose to make the IDN WG exclusively "AmerICANN". Nothing against it. This is the Internationalized American Legacy Internet community's way to protect the interests of a few stakeholders that are in turn against the American people's interests, as well as to not care about or disfavor foreign interests. I must frankly state that I don't give a damn about this. However, this is something that you should discuss with David Gross, Suzanne Senne, Paul Twomey, and the GoogleBoys, and even more so if the USA is headed for a recession and a Democratic Administration. Some serious Americans, of course, may not share your positions. As a consequence, you are leading us to carry out our own ML.ML strategy independently. This is not that easy because we are trying to keep things stable and do not want to harm honest protagonists, from any country. Moreover, addressing the ICANN/IETF noise erodes our modest resources. Therefore, you will understand, I am sure, that we do not care too much about the 3 billion-dollar DNS artificial businesses, of which you are denying us the possibility to concert with its ICANN syndicate. You will therefore bear the entire responsibility if we cannot obtain the smooth transition we planned, whenthe concomitant support of DNs, IDNs, IDN.IDN, ML.ML, keywords, and aliases under IPv4, IPv6, NAT/IPv8, IPvLX, LISP (and whatever the IAB and IETF may bring out as architectures) is introduced at the ISP and user levels. In a grassroots manner, may be not like the polite, RFC abiding, and ICANN respectful Chinese way. As will also be Kim Davis and Roberto, who refused to confirm that "ICANN does not want to move from ISO 3166 to IANA LSER". This obviously helped us to make understood your (lack of a) policy. Yet, it does not help the US/ICANN and main stakeholders' mid-term interests. After all, our priority is the users' interests. However, we could have helped the current dominant business interests, in turn helping everyone. Our only fear is that some people go faster than we do (the I* community delayed us for quite some time): they may see things differently and only focus on pirate business. It is never good to try to block the market by delaying and refusing discourse with lead users. I would even go as far as to say it is a _major_ mistake. Anyway, we will have carried out our duty in trying. You will have failed in your duty by preventing us from working together with your people. This was your choice. Take care. jfc |