[CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS

[Chokri Ben Romdhane]

Dear Evan,
Thank you very much for your diverse and  valuable inputs, including your
thoughts about some actors that somehow  participated in the fragmentation
of the internet by   supporting some Business models that  are sometimes in
contrast with public Interest .
What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation  has
evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable  ( at
different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have
mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business
trend!

Friendly regards
Chokri

Le dim. 20 nov. 2022 à 14:37, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org> a
écrit :

> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 5:10 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <
> cpwg at icann.org> wrote:
>
>
>> this was 10+ years ago. We live in a very different ICANN today and the
>> ALAC's standing is way better than it used to be in the wider scheme of
>> things. Just look at the composition of the ICANN Board and notice that it
>> is much less industry friendly than it used to be. Some members of our
>> community are lead figures that actively balance interests.
>>
>
> Hi Olivier,
>
> Sorry, but I will call shenanigans on that assertion.
>
> Deeds speak.
>
> That the ICANN Board not only needed to deliberate at length, but had to
> be "nudged" by the California Attorney-General to make the right decision
> on the ,ORG debacle tells even a casual outsider all they need to know
> about the *ongoing* attitude of ICANN towards the public interest.
>
> ICANN refused its own consultants' recommendations to have a second Board
> member recommended by the At-Large Community because we didn't grovel
> sufficiently. And don't even get me started on that pathetic joke on the
> world known as ICANN's "empowered community". That At-Large validated that
> laughable monster rather than fight it at every step is reason alone to
> bestow "hood ornament" status. As a result, as those outside the ICANN
> cult-bubble have plainly seen, without the California AG ICANN has no real
> public accountability at all.
>
> Apparently one must be periodically reminded that, no matter where they
> came from, ICANN Board members are commanded upon arrival that their
> fiduciary duty is to ICANN-the-institution and *not* stakeholders or the
> public interest. Or to also be reminded that the GNSO compact of domain
> buyers and sellers has the power to compel the Board to act on high-level
> policy, whereas At-Large remains encouraged to engage in bikeshedding of
> the highest order. Unless those two rather horrible unique corporate
> artifacts have changed, please don't lecture on how ICANN may be gentler to
> the public interest simply because we recognize some of the people on the
> Board.
>
> - Evan
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20221124/d245dfaf/attachment-0001.html>