| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 58 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 don't agree very often with ICANN leadership, but I have to agree that, for the most part, the ICANN forums are a joke. While some meaningful information did come to light there, it's mostly a wasteland of whining, bellyaching, repetitive tirades, and (worst of all in terms of lowering the signal-to-noise ratio) huge numbers of one-liner "me-too" postings from people who seem to think it's a chat room rather than a commentary forum. Whoever got the "brilliant" idea that they could write their message entirely in the subject line and end it with "EOM" should be taken out and shot. That's resulted in the visible messages on the forum screen consisting largely of that sort of useless garbage and causing meaningful messages to be lost in the noise.
ICANNWatch seems to have a higher proportion of meaningful messages, with the exception of a brief period a few months ago when the mindless chatterers seemed to be trying to take it over.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ummmm why do you think that it became: "a wasteland of whining, bellyaching, repetitive tirades"? Could it be because ICANN was ignoring the things that people were complaining about? Could it be frustration in the fact that ICANN ignores everyone else but Joe Sims, Louis Touton and VeriSign?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
The point is, Dan, that consumers do need opportunities to challenge organisations like ICANN which are meant to be run for the public good.
I cannot agree that the forum in question was a "joke" because (if you use your own judgement to sidestep fun messages which don't go on target) the issues are not ones which should be trivialised by Stuart Lynn as "a joke".
As with the marginalisation of Robert Connelly by Afilias, or the marginalisation of Auerbach by ICANN, Stuart Lynn was trying to marginalise that part of the Internet public which was actually asking challenging questions which deserved - at least - some detailed answers.
Instead of which, ICANN has failed to enter any dialogue over a range of issues that had seriously impacted on consumers.
Again and again and again, both on this forum, by e-mail, or on ICANN's other various forums, Vint and Stuart have been begged to explain... but instead... we get evasion... marginalisation... silence.
It is absolutely clear that ICANN was running scared from the forum in question, because the fair and serious-minded questions being raised were awkward and inconvenient.
If ICANN exists for the benefit of the Internet public, we should expect better. We should reasonably expect openness. We should reasonably expect responses. Instead of which, we get what I'd call the NetSol culture of never-answered questions or avoidance of information.
We deserve better.
And in the face of this, and in the context of serious issues, NO, I do not think the forum was a joke.
If you believe in freedom and democracy, then recognise that you're going to have to tolerate some background noise and trivia... but I expect a primarily American institution to practice openness, dialogue, explanation, and be aware that evasion and "insider decisions" are just not acceptable.
If Stuart Lynn was prepared (himself, or through his staff) to go one by one through ten of the most serious concerns raised on that forum, and enter into detailed dialogue to defend ICANN's actions, then the forums would have even more value.
It is not the members of the public who have made these forums a joke, but the inability (or unwillingness) of the ICANN staff to participate openly and constructively has reduced their effectiveness.
I take the view that that is because ICANN has its own agenda and its own standards of business practice, which fall short of the expectations of open-minded members of the public or consumers.
Many people have been inconvenienced or defrauded as an outcome of ICANN's maladministration.
I do not call that a joke, Dan.
And I do not think it is a "joke" to participate in a public forum which raises these issues.
Kind regards and thanks for your own contributions to the expired forum, and your openness in posting in your own name - but I don't agree with you, and I think Stuart Lynn was wrong, patronising, and offensive to deride the hard work and serious contributions of so many people represented at the heart of the New TLDS Agreements forum.
Classic marginalisation of those who are a threat to you.
Richard
|
|
|
|
[ 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
|
