RE: [ga] GA

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

Michael Froomkin wrote:

>
>As I recall it, the IFWP vision was vastly differnent from what we in fact
>got from the WITSA-INTA-ITAA-gTLD-Mou POC alliance (I'm doing this without
>notes, so apologies if I missed out a group or added one that didn't
>belong) which substantially produced the DNSO we have.
>

I could not fail to notice an increasing insistence (and not only in this 
list) in trying to resuscitate the dead body of the IFWP.
The funny coincidence is that this effort goes in parallel with the effort 
in re-writing history (i.e., ccTLDs were irrelevant in the ICANN building 
process).

Of course, it is very cleverly done.
Drop a line here, add a cc-list there, insist on general statements without 
urls or precise references, but then, slowly slowly, it becomes the talk of 
the town. And all of a sudden everybody is convinced that Sacco and Vanzetti 
are responsible for the facts, and must be hung.

Can we possibly separate the gossip from the facts, provide evidence for 
what we claim, distinguish the nice and cosy feeling of "the way we were" 
from the acceptance of the (hard?) reality of today?

My opinion:
ICANN has been chosen by USG (DoC), there's no evidence that it has been 
given results that were not in line with the desiderata of its owner.
Please stop claiming that USG has been victim of the international communist 
plot by the Gnomes of Zurich, USG has been in charge and in command, and not 
fooled by anybody or anything.
If there has been a mistake in choosing the right candidate the first time 
(which is still open to debate), there is nothing that indicated that the 
chooser has developed a better judgement. Therefore either we have to change 
the chooser, or we have to provide criteria to make the choice (on 
substance, of course, not just "anybody besides the previous one").
IFWP can hardly be put as an example of "inclusion", and it was only after 
much hard work (and a couple of strokes of luck) that its initial 
US-centricness has been (slightly) modified to accept other views.

Also, I don't really see the similarities of the current ICANN with the 
gTLD-MoU model or alliance: surely the US-centrism, the failure to separate 
registrar and registry, the slowlyness in adding new TLDs, and so on and so 
forth with were not part of the gTLD-MoU agenda.

Anyway, no point in rehashing the past, except that we have to remember it 
in order not to repeat it.

Best regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html