RE: [ga] Haiti, the Internet and ICANN

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Believe me, I am not trying to muddy the waters.  I have been thinking for
quite some while about your original email and whether I responded
correctly. I am afraid my original response still stands, whether you like
it or not you cannot single Haiti out on human rights issues and
realistically expect ICANN to respond!  

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/300109.html

I do not consider any of these issues, or the many other human rights issues
going on in the world today, as trivial.

I say again, let he who is without sin cast the first stone!

I don't like what happened with .IQ as it smacks of politics and this, IMHO,
is a very dodgy area for ICANN.  It is also why a number of countries in the
Middle East are more than a bit nervous of ICANN control. The type of heavy
handedness you wish ICANN to display would be disastrous in the eyes of the
world IMHO. 

What would you say if someone from Haiti came into this forum and complained
about the US human rights record and demanded that ICANN suspend all US
owned domains until you got your act together?  Does it matter how many
souls are involved or just that souls are involved?  Is America the peace
keeper or the terrorist?  It rather depends from which side you are looking
in doesn't it?

Best regards

Debbie





> -----Original Message-----
> From: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 30 June 2007 23:19
> To: Debbie Garside
> Cc: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] Haiti, the Internet and ICANN
> 
> > Sotoris wrote:
> >
> >> In case you didn't know, he who makes the rules is not necessarily 
> >> beholden to them...  The ICANN is a US organization, just 
> ask the US 
> >> Department of Commerce.
> >
> > I am aware of the background to ICANN :-)
> 
> If that's the case, then you really have no need of learning 
> who makes the rules and according to what standard, which 
> makes your earlier response wholly unnecessary... :-o  Unless 
> of course you're trying to obfuscate the matter by providing 
> a straw man response to my very valid original question.  So 
> please, spare us the rhetorical exercise... my original 
> concern is valid as I voiced it, don't try to muddy the 
> waters or trivialize the matter as stated.
> 
> I am sure you understand...
> 
> Sotiris
> 
> 
> 
>