| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ICANN to Give .org to ISOC: Insiders Win Again?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 32 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
I do so hate to say that I told you all so.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
The link to an essay on ISOC by Randy Wright presently points only to icannwatch.org. The hyperlink is empty. I don't know if you meant this by Randy Wright regarding ISOC elections, but it is worth reading anyway. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Michael writes:
"Which leads me to conclude that if ICANN and its advisors had been asked to rate the PC and internet as ideas 20 years ago, we'd be using timeshare slices on Honeywell, Burroughs and IBM mainframes and communicating by telegrams e-mailed to the local post office and then delivered by the local mail carrier."
This is a great comment but ICANN is in the "stability" business not the "innovation" business. In this case, it clearly defined - and heavily weighted - technical stability relative to .org as previous experience in operating a TLD registry. The evaluators then drilled down from there.
Whether this was proper "stability criteria" for ICANN to instruct its evaluators is a different subject all together, mostly as this relates to such criteria being a moving target rather than a well documented list of minimum technical specifications (that would largely remove subjectivity).
In this case, the fact .org already existed with a material registration base was used as its "reason of the month" to justify its stability criteria. Again, ICANN avoids setting precedent. For example, if a new player could prove to operate .org based upon a set of technical criteria it adheres to, then why could a new player not operate a brand new TLD registry based upon the very same technical criteria? ICANN wanted no part of this precedent and actually called it a stability risk to .org as justification.
This is the same as saying that ICANN admits it is incapable - or not qualified - to produce the technical specification criteria that would reasonably ensure for the community the ongoing functionality of the .org registry. Instead, it picked "prior experience" that makes sense on the surface but severely limited the viable candidates for re-delegation. This was the best ICANN was able to do as a technical coordination body....I think anyone could have done that.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Both Bret Fausett here and Thomas Roessler here call additional aspects of the evaluation into question. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos raises an interesting point on the GA list. How can ISOC be a registry and also be heavily involved with the At Large (at least ICANN's version of it)? And why does the report give an email address for comments, and not ICANN's own forum? So that the comments aren't open and transparent to all? Thomas Roessler's blog, link to the left on this page, points to additional press coverage. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
SFAIK, Arthur Andersen is not, and has not, been ICANN's accounting firm. That is a rumor that refuses to die. They did serve as consultants for the new TLD application process, which is not the same thing at all. Other than that, I agree with you. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
The Board hires the staff, the staff is thus at least theoretically (and even on paper) subservient to the BoD. The staff comes up with an evaluation process, the BoD OK's it. The staff then recommends the evaluation teams. The BoD then OK's them. The evaluation teams then come forward with their recommendations, the staff then interprets those recommendations. The BoD then (though we have yet to see it) OK's it. The BoD and staff are all over this, although not in that order. It is all very well for the BoD to use the staff as an insulator and say, it wasn't our decision, the staff (and evaluators) made us do it. And it is all very well for the staff to say, it wasn't our decision, we're only doing what the evaluation teams called for (which is, frankly, crap), or that we're only doing what our employers told us to do, or at least OK'd. What this current spin that you're trying shows only too well is that no-one in the ICANN pantheon will accept responsibility for their actions, they will go ahead and act (always to the benefit of a very few players who are already the source of most of ICANN's funds), and when they are challenged on any actions they will point at someone else and claim the devil made them do it. There is no leadership here, no integrity, no accountability (a BoD member has to sue to even see the accounts!), these folks are as worthy of trust as a nest of vipers. When you deal with them remember you might as well shake hands with snakes. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | 8 replies beneath your current threshold. |
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
|
