[IANAtransition] [Internet Policy] New acronym IFABDFI ;-)
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Apr 3 00:40:54 UTC 2014
On 03/04/2014 13:14, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> Suggestions always welcomed on improving ICANN's multistakeholder mechanisms....
I think the voice that is missing is certainly not that of any of
the major vested interests. It's the consumers' voice; a service
provider of any kind has difficulty representing its mass of users,
because their interests are often divergent from those of the service
I bet, for example, that consumers already befuddled by web site
names would argue against complicating their lives with bits of
fluff like .biz and most of the proposed new gTLDs. The argument
that .london will make life easier for users is manifestly absurd
(especially for users in London, Ontario). I doubt if this sort
of view has been well represented in the past.
> ATRT2 has wrapped up, but that only means ATRT3 is on its way....
> Other avenues exist, either at the ICANN level or (for gTLDs) the GNSO level.
> ICANN is ramping up its Global Stakeholder Engagement team; I have my concerns that this is not designed to bring more participants into the MS process, but rather to build the audience. This is an issue I intend to pursue in my copious free time.
> Greg Shatan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 6:09 PM
> To: Seun Ojedeji
> Cc: Richard Hill; Shatan, Gregory S.; Patrik Fältström; ianatransition at icann.org; ISOC; Ianaxfer at Elists. Isoc. Org
> Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] [Internet Policy] New acronym IFABDFI ;-)
> On 03/04/2014 07:57, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>> If anybody doubts that some people think that there are some issues
>>> with the current setup, then please take a look at point 3 of:
>> I picked the part below from item 3 and would like you to tell me if
>> this is not what ICANN is trying to do?:
>> .......future growth of the Internet needs to decentralize
>> infrastructure and decision-making through representative and
>> transparent structures that include all stakeholders and assign clear
>> responsibilities to governments, the private sector and civil society.
> Not only that, but of all the problems asserted on that web site, the only one relevant to this discussion is the implication that ICANN being a California-based organisation under contract to the DoC biases decision making towards US companies. Since the topic of discussion is what to do to remove the DoC link, I will continue to assert IFABDFI for everything except the immediate effects of removing that link.
> Which effects, to be clear, should include improving ICANN's multistakeholder mechanisms; I would certainly expect NTIA to look for that.
> * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
More information about the ianatransition