| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
House Members Are Losing Patience With ICANN
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 7 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
ICANN will once more dismiss this as the work of "arrogant juveniles".
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Read that letter again, then read the Blueprint for Reform, released last evening. Why isn't every issue raised by the good Congressmen addressed by the Blueprint? The issues may not be addressed the way we'd all like them to be, but it strikes me that the Congressional letter is fairly mild and was purposefully written so it would be answered by the existing process.
-- Bret
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Short-term renewal? How short? Three months? Six months?
Any longer would be too long
ICANN have had numerous opportunities to listen and change their ways of working, but they do not wish to. They like it the way it is. It suite them and their majority trademark-holding "stakeholders"
If ICANN are allowed to continue, they will simply 'tweak' their way of operating and put token people in positions of little or no authority (just as in the so-called At-Large Directors fiasco)
ICANN must not be left to its own devices, it must be FORCED to implement radical changes, or cease to exist
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
There are some senses in this article of"what ICANN should do".
I especially agree that "ICANN's operating procedures must be transparent to any and all interested parties. This means far more than posting decisions on a website. ICANN must establish rules, not unlike those in the Administrative Procedures Act, that provide interested parties with predictability"In other words,ICANN should be more accessible to any countries,any corporation and any individual who will be affected by its policy.
Don't always emphasize the interest of stakeholders and interested parties!In fact,till now,ICANN has been considering their interests too much,not too little!Anyway,Internet belongs to human being rather than belongs to a few stakeholders.what ICANN should consider more is to respect the interests of all the countries connected into Internet,especially the interests of developing countries.
ICANN should remember that internet doesn't belong to America only,not to say just belongs to several stakeholders and interested parties!
|
|
|
|
[ 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
|
