| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ICANN, Narcissus; Narcissus, ICANN
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 10 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Might I suggest that those more tuned in to the truth prepare a rebuttal brief and publish it as well as forwarding it to the appropriate authorities? Those authorities might be sadly excused for believing ICANN's report unchallenged.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
Can anyone indicate when and where ICANN delivered the reports mentioned in the version of the MoU of last September as due? It says:
"ICANN shall submit a report to the Department no later than November 30, 2002, providing a description of the current status of the root server system. ICANN shall submit a report to the Department no later than December 31, 2002, providing a description of the proposal for enhanced architecture for root server security as set forth above, a procedural plan for the transition to such enhanced architecture, and an implementation schedule for such transition."
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
I found it amusing to see that ICANN now considers the only "stakeholders" who are allowed in the sandbox to "key stakeholders" - I guess it's not enough to anymore to be a mere run of the mill "stakeholder", now one has to be a key stakeholder.
But wait there's more - now for members of the public to be allowed into ICANN's useless company unions, you must be an "informed" member of the public. But no such requirement of being "informed" is placed on those "key stakeholders" and ICANN certainly worked its tail off trying to prevent me from looking at its records so that I could be an "informed" director. I guess that within the fantasy world of ICANN, it is only the public who are obligated to be "informed" as a precondition to participation.
And then there's that list of IANA - not ICANN - accomplishments. Things like those "private enterprise numbers" that make up the majority of its work - those are allocated in exactly the same way that most protocol numbers are assigned - the big book of numbers is consulted, the difficult job of adding one to the previous maximum value is performed, the result is written back into the big book of numbers. Even under ICANN's reign, that job takes at most a few seconds per number. In other words, ICANN is reaching very hard to make a very small molehill look like a very large mountain.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
so why didn't any of the earlier status reports include a litany of IANA's accomplishments?
cheers,
t
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 1 reply 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
|
