| | 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This discussion has been archived.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.
|
|
 |
Accountability requires that those affected by ICANN's decisions have a role in the making of those decisions.
The "blueprint" does not give the Internet community any such role, except perhaps as a powerless observer who is allowed merely to read press-releases from ICANN's Public Image Supporting Organization.
The old "stakeholder" mentality still dominates the plan - the idea that certain groups are more deserving than others - or as Orwell put it, all animals are equal but some are more equal than others - guarantees that the internet user community will have a voice that is always buried by those of commercial interests.
The clarity of the message that no divergent views will be be tolerated and that the board of directors is to be composed of people who simply check their brains at the door and who do not dissent from the party line may be found in the document's definition of the board of directors as a body which acts "cohesively as a group".
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Well, let's see. The Congressional letter raises the following issues: [1] ICANN must set out clear and unalterable lines articulating the areas that are outside its mission. [2] Its decision-making process must be transparent, incorporating rules like those of the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act, including defined comment periods and established decision criteria. [3] ICANN must have a fair, speedy, and unbiased independent review process. [4] The Board must include members with diverse perspectives and alternative ideas. The Blueprint [1] refuses to define any areas as beyond ICANN's mission; [2] does not define a decision-making process as described in the letter; [3] eliminates any independent review (unless you think it counts to allow a challenger to invoke a commercial arbitration process leaving him on the hook for thousands of dollars in costs if he loses); and [4] sets up a NomCom process that by its nature will likely lead to a homogeneous Board. Your point, Bret?
|
|
|
|
[ 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
|
