[atlarge-discuss] Recent Reform Comments (fwd)

[Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>]

As we begin yet another new chapter, and for those who do not subscribe to
GA, we must continue to think of alternatives...
  
 --- REgards, walts

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:24:50 EDT
From: DannyYounger@cs.com
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Recent Reform Comments

In comments just recently posted to the ERC Forum, the ISPCP Chairman Tony
Holmes makes the following statement: "I believe its appropriate to
emphasise that there's a strong view within the ISPCP that ICANN and the
ERC in particular are just not listening to the major issues of concern
which have been raised."

  http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/implementation/msg00028.html

How many times have we heard this refrain from every single representative
body in the ICANN process?

Once more, the RIRs have written:  "The RIRs assumed the reform and
evolution process would be implemented as an open dialog between ICANN and
its stakeholders.  To date, this has not been the case.  From the
perspective of the RIRs, the process used by ICANN has been less open and
more rigid, with little by way of feedback that would be typically
associated with a dialog."  "As an attempt to engage in dialogue with
stakeholders in order to reach a shared understanding of appropriate and
necessary evolution and reform measures any objective judgment of the
process would conclude that it falls far short of an effective, open,
inclusive and fair process."

  http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/implementation/msg00020.html

What all of these groups have in common is a profound revulsion toward the
top-down implementation being forced upon them by the Illusion of Reform
Committee.  Apparently they have all failed to grasp a key point -- ICANN
doesn't care.  ICANN will continue to draw from their reserve of hackneyed
platitudes and will once more proceed to issue statements such as:  
"while the Blueprint may not satisfy everyone, it provides the right
foundation on which ICANN can build for the future."

It matters little to the Board that their "foundation" should be resting
upon the consent of the governed.  Time after time they have shown
complete and utter disregard for the community consensus, their decision
on WLS being but the latest example.  But let them go ahead and build
their throne of bayonets, the passage of time will prove that they won't
be able to sit on it for very long.

The Department of Commerce acknowledged that at the moment, "no obvious
alternative exists for long-term DNS management", but they also noted that
"if ICANN does not make significant progress on the transition tasks,
alternatives will be identified and considered."  I look forward to
working with others in the community to establish an alternative to ICANN.  
The ICANN contracts should be re-bid, and another private entity should
take over the coordination of the DNS.

As long as ICANN seeks to be a commander instead of a coordinator this
alternative must be pursued.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de