RE: Legal Question - Re: [wg-review] Concerns

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Eric,
Excellent. This is a brilliant example of how it is possible to meet the
challenge of putting ideas forward in an effective format IMHO. All it needs
now is some documentary evidence (URLS) to establish a foundation for the
claims it makes. Then we can use it.
Regards,
Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Eric Dierker
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 7:13 PM
To: Derek Conant
Cc: Greg Burton; wg-review@dnso.org; dtreaty@dnsga.org;
subscribers@dnsga.org
Subject: Re: Legal Question - Re: [wg-review] Concerns


Dear Mr. Conant,
Allow me to put this input from you into a format which can lead to
recomendation.

I apologize in advance for butchering your positions.


Derek Conant wrote:

> I have monitored the ICANN work groups.  The problem I am having with your
> answer is that I cannot find that ICANN work groups have influenced ICANN
to
> modify its policy and process for the good of the DNS.  It appears that
only
> ICANN representatives have chosen the agendas with a flagrant disregard
toward
> any fair consensus process and work group process.
>

or
Upon review and analysis there appears to be a lack of influence of working
groups
pon ICANN.  ICANN representatives seem to pick agendas independently rather
than
based upon consensus and input from working groups.

>
> Has ICANN or its representatives made any statement regarding that it is
> looking to modify its policy and process for the good of the DNS?
>

or
Is there a mandate that current policies and processes be modified to obtain
a
more representative determination.

>
> Has ICANN or its representatives made any statement regarding that ICANN
is
> looking to include international Internet constituency representatives to
play
> key roles in the control and management and integrity of the DNS?
>

or
It would be productive if ICANN were to make public statements supporting
the
objective of a broader stakeholder representation.  This would help
integrity and
outreach.

>
> Why are the above-mentioned questions not being addressed?
>

or
I propose the preceding be included within any report.

>
> It appeared to me yesterday that during the teleconference ICANN
> representatives demanded that their agendas move forward, regardless of
the
> lack of support for the agendas.
>

or
Personal agenda setting and demands are having an extremely dilatory effect
upon
the efficacy of ICANN to be perceived and to act as a proper Governance
body.

>
> Is your interpretation of support for ICANN agendas the participation of 4
or
> 5 people to represent the World on major issues  affecting the future of
the
> DNS?

or
Broader based participation and representation are necessary to fulfill the
goals
and mandates of ICANN.

>
>
> I believe that this working group should help ICANN identify problems with
its
> self-serving policy.  ICANN has its global dictatorship position today,
while
> it strives to proliferate its bad policy and unfair consensus process,
because
> very few understood or was willing to challenge these matters until now.
>

or
ICANN, through education and evaluation should move away from the perception
of
many that it is not representative of Internet stakeholders.  The methods of
arriving at decisions have resulted in poor process and poor perception.

>
> ICANN should realize that its old way of doing things by the "consensus
> process" will no longer work to control the World, especially in the
current
> state of the US economy.
>

Due to hightening tensions and the robust economies and growing attention to
ICANN
it must move through this transition period quickly and establish prodicalls
which
will effect substantive change.

>
> Derek Conant
>

Just a thought!
Sincerely,

>
> Greg Burton wrote:
>
> > At 01:23 PM 1/25/01, Derek Conant wrote:
> > >Can you then please explain or outline for me the progress you have
seen
> > >through
> > >the work groups and where the work groups actually influenced ICANN to
> > >modify its
> > >policy and process for the good of the DNS?
> >
> > My position is that we're doing it right here, right now - if we can
focus
> > on tasks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > sidna@feedwriter.com
> >
> > --
> > 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

--
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