Re: DNSGA Re: [wg-review] [Review] ccTLD vs DNSO vs ICANN vs GAC

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

I intend this under structure, constituency and outreach

There are some very well intentioned people who are just down right offensive, if you point this out to them and they are well intentioned they will try not to be offensive, I may be included in this group. I apologize as "go boom" is an amercan slang which can be interpreted two ways, I meant it as it refers to a young child who falls down and goes boom.
I believe that by pointing out to ICANN just how they are perceived by others both within and without it has the greatest pontential to correct offensive behavior and avoid falling from grace.  As you have pointed out this has the greatest direct impact in funding.

If ICANN fails to recognize the appearance they have and do something about it, then we have what I consider pretty good proof that they are not well intentioned.  The biggest problem in this regard is that they have a history of failure as at least 50% of the participants in this group can attest to.  In order to correct this problem ICANN will have to correct the refusal to reflect Stakeholder interests, and do some history rewriting (spin) in order to gain popular support.

Personally, although it is certainly nothing to be proud of, I have sold junk and made the buyer believe he was getting the finest product obtainable, but he was happy and came back for more, giving me his money.  So far this is what ICANN has been doing, not because they marketed well but because they are a monopoly, and if you want the product you have to buy their junk.  I understand our goal is to recomend solutions to that problem.  And I truly believe that if they do not act appropriately with regard to the recomendations they will fall down and go boom.

Sincerely,
 

Derek Conant wrote:

I believe that ICANN has played a good game of  "you can approach us from within."  ICANN will not go boom.  ICANN will be a thorn and in the way of productivity without significant change.  My approach here is to introduce some reality into this forum and process to make things better.  I am for solving problems.

Eric Dierker wrote:

I agree with your concept here.  However I prefer to leave the negative side to if they do
not on this go around fix it then boom.  ICANN must be approched from within and without
with a carrot and a stick.  Instead of thinking of it as possibly spinning our wheels, I
prefer to think of it as a set-up and giving them enough rope to hang themselves, if they so
choose.

Derek Conant wrote:

> I believe that all parties interested in the future and direction of the DNS should
> participate in or with ICANN and its supporting organizations.  ICANN is well positioned
> which demands this participation and I believe that ICANN can use all of the help it can
> get if it is willing to change its current way of doing things.
>
> I believe that ICANN and its supporting organizations must demonstrate to the
> international Internet community that ICANN's special interests are not, and will not
> be, the final objective regardless of any public opposition or public participation.
>
> I believe that for ICANN to gain real international support, ICANN and its supporting
> organizations must allow international representatives at all levels in the ICANN
> decision and policy making processes.
>
> A topic being discussed in this wg-review is the matter of multi-lingual issues.  I see
> the topic as a productive one, however, I also see ICANN demonstrating the need for
> moneys to fund such a concept.  If ICANN and its supporting organizations really had the
> international Internet community on its side, ICANN would not have the problem of
> multi-lingual issues. I believe that people from the international Internet community
> would step forward and freely devote there resources if they believed in and trusted the
> ICANN process.  I do not believe that the international Internet community will buy
> ICANN's current way of doing things regardless of the resources spent on multi-lingual
> issues.  I do not believe that ICANN will be able to compete with the many international
> organizations that will spell-out ICANN's self-serving conduct.
>
> ICANN must engage and demonstrate real change and allow international representation to
> play a key role in its decision and policy making processes to gain support from the
> international Internet community.  Without this change or something new, we are all only
> spinning our wheels here.
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > I think this is a correct assessment.  But I add: and continue to participate in
> > ICANN.
> >
> > Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
> > > http://www.dnsga.org
> > >
> > > Maybe the international Internet community, and more specifically ccTLD
> > > representatives, need to participate in a new organization wholly separate from
> > > ICANN?
> > >
> > > Eric Dierker wrote:
> > >
> > > > I bow to your wisdom and Greg's analysis of how we can accomplish the most good.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Joanna Lane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Eric wrote:-
> > > > > Don't you think that perhaps our input may help them in the task.  The
> > > > > extraordinary support from this group regarding addressing the issues of
> > > > > multi-lingualism should at least let them know they have a wide base of
> > > > > support
> > > > > to come up with solutions.  Also it will give people a heads up as to what
> > > > > likely antagonists positioning will be, something I would be most grateful
> > > > > for.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the other hand I would like to know where in Mr. Burton's categories this
> > > > > thread belongs.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Joanna]  I just think we could save time if we knew what the ccTLD's want
> > > > > first, and in particular, from this WG.
> > > > > Hello ccTLDs, do you have any position papers to clarify the issues for us?
> > > > >
> > > > > > YJ Park wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello members,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As you read, Bill asked not to cross post wg-review message to
> > > > > > > cctld-discuss list. Please keep this in mind.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have focused "Language Divide" and "Translation Cost" in
> > > > > > > ICANN process. As you may know, ccTLD is going to have a
> > > > > > > meeting in Hawaii to figure out what their future should be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since ccTLD constituency is in the DNSO structure at this juncture,
> > > > > > > it might be more productive to discuss bigger picture for WG-Review's
> > > > > > > recommendation to the Names Council.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. [DNSO Structure Discussion] ccTLD should be in the DNSO?
> > > > > > > 2. If not, what could be the potential model
> > > > > > > 3. [NET Sovereignty] If so, what kind of relations should there
> > > > > > >     be between ccTLD and ICANN
> > > > > > > 4. What kind of relations among ccTLD vs ICANN vs GAC
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > :So with this in mind just what sort of relations exist at this time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not comfortable with discussing what would be the appropriate model
> > > > > for
> > > > > > ccTLDs, when they, themselves, have not yet determined what their future
> > > > > > should be. I would have thought we should wait for a proposal to come from
> > > > > > Hawaii, then discuss the merits.
> > > > > > Joanna
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard