| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Same Old Shell Game All Over Again
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 12 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
The usually well-informed ICANN Blog says, "The discussion starts tomorrow at the public forum and should extend for a few weeks after."
I expressed concern over the apparent short time between publication of the paper and the public forum and was assured that the public forum is only the start of the conversation. Comments will be taken for a few more weeks. I understand this will be clarified on the ICANN site in the coming days.
-- Bret
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Your note caused me to look at my the e-mail that I have received on icann's board[*]'s mailing list.
There is *NO* notice that this paper exists or that it was posted.
The full board meeting starts in less than 19 hours. Yet I have not seen anything more than a cursory agenda - with no detail, no proposed resolutions, no nothing.
Once again, ICANN's staff does not properly subordinate itself to its board or directors.
And the board, rather than objecting, sits silently and lets itself be abused and thus condemms itself to being nothing more than a rubber stamp, and failing in its job of serving the public interest.
As for the proposed new TLD evaluations - during the last round, ICANN spent over $300,000 on an outside review firm. And as far as I can tell that firm merely sat in on meetings and gave oral comments. That's a lot of money for unverifiable hot air. And we saw the awful job that was done by Gartner in .org. (And in at least one other case ICANN paid a large sum for a study by a high-priced law firm, a study that the public has not seen. That study team was knowingly or recklessly fed false information by ICANN staff in a way that I believe was designed to induce a predetermined desired outcome.)
ICANN likes expensive studies. They make pretty bullets on presentations. But as far as useful value? So far the only competency that ICANN has shown is the ability to pay large sums for very little result.
[*] ICANN's board's mailing list has an unknown number of non-board members, including Joe Sims, who routinely participate in board e-mail discussions as if they were principals rather than hired servants.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
- Re:No notice
by tbyfield
Wednesday March 26 2003, @04:52PM
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
It looks as if ICANN is trying to achieve something and prove that there is always room for change. The evaluation team that will be created seems as a good beginning and a process that may result to more transparency. No way though, ICANN's dictionary doesn't know what transparence stands for. "The Board would not intrude in the evaluation process itself; its options would be to accept or to reject the results of the evaluation." So if the Board is in the position to reject the results of the evaluation, why should there be an evaluation in the first place?If the evaluation is to be rejected, its outcomes will never be known and will never be posted on ICANN's site. And why should they? The last thing that ICANN wants is another polemic to its functions and to the way they operate the DNS.
However and to make another point, what is really strange in my opinion is why in every meeting of ICANN - and there are a lot - nothing is discussed about the UDRP? Do they think that the system works? Well, if they do they are obviously blind; but most probably it is not that they are unaware of the whole situation, it is just that they don't want to dissapoint those for whose the system was created, trademark holders.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Under applicable law the Board of Directors, as a collective body, has ultimate control over ICANN's acts.
Under applicable law, ICANN's Board of Directors is free to override any recommendation, any evaluation. In fact, Directors are obligated to exercise their independent judgement and not simply be mindless marionettes.
ICANN's Board, through its history of continued rejections of Requests for Reconsideration, its history of ignoring recommendations from the DNSO, and its interpretation of its own bylaws, has made it clear that the Board will not be bound even by its own by-laws.
I saw the report of the IP Address RIRs - I hope they recognize that if one admits that ICANN has a role in IP address allocations via any of its agreements with the US gov't that ICANN's board has the ultimate authority to allocate and revoke IP addresses no matter what the RIRs might think.
ICANN's history is one of arbitrary and capricious behaviour, unguided and unlimited by principles or rules.
Is ICANN likely to change its spots? Is the moon made of green cheese? Do pigs fly?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
| | 3 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
|
