| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Gauntlet Thrown Down on ccTLDs?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 4 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
A summary of the papers and of some of the discussion may be found at http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/workshop/cctld/cct ld059.pdf [itu.int]
By-the-way, I notice that my own submission was dismissed by some ICANN folk at the meeting as being nothing more than my personal opinion. One wonders why the ICANN folks were so defensive - I never said that that ICANN's withholding of IANA services to ccTLDs was an official, board-adopted position of ICANN. ICANN's withholding of IANA services is based on a decision made unilaterally by ICANN's "staff", the board was not involved.
I'd like to mention that the submissions of ICANN were never approved by the board and thus, to my mind, are really nothing more than the personal opinions of an ICANN employee.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:I was there
by KarlAuerbach
|
|
|
|
|
Karl, the document you are linking to was prepared by the Chairmen before the meeting, only by reading the papers, and as a draft, but was dismissed by the participants (all of them, not just ICANN staff members) since there was no agreement on the fact that the things stated there were actually a correct summary of what had been said or agreed.
For example, there were some other people (other than myself) standing up and stating that there should be more involvement of final users in the policy making process, and yet there was no mention of this in the summary. I was ready to propose a statement on this to be added to the document, when it was decided to discard the first three pages as a whole.
One of the problems, in fact, is that this was just a workshop without any kind of "policy-making process" or way to determine consensus. So there was no way you could decide whether the statements that the authors of the document had hand-picked to compose it did actually represent the views of anyone more than their author, and in some cases there were papers clearly stating opposite points of view. There wasn't even agreement on whether it is true that "in many cases domain names come under the provisions of a general telecommunications law" - some argued that in fact the cases in which the ccTLD manager is not formally recognized are still the majority.
(About the submissions being approved the Board - does ICANN have a "representation policy" stating what needs to be approved by the Board or what the CEO and staff can state on their own?)
--vb. (Vittorio Bertola)
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
