<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/12/07 03:09 AM, McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxjgs7pjLJsQWEXMCYnKRtxLF9FF+R4agzyC9AreWDnRyA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Why does Parminder have to
give a utopian vision for the future while others are
precluded from this requirement? Where is the balance in that?</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't believe I asked for a utopian vision. I simply
questioned why " One needs to propose under what kind of
arrangement will the new internationalised ICANN get
institutionalised and subsist.", and then asked if the severing
of the DoC contract with ICANN is not the next step in the
evolution of that realtionship.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It may or may not be. It could enhance "private" (i.e. in US terms,
Non-profit orgs as well) control without increasing accountability.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxjgs7pjLJsQWEXMCYnKRtxLF9FF+R4agzyC9AreWDnRyA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">There is also disruptive
evolution (see preceding comment). However, I cannot see how
the legitimacy issue can be dealt with if even basic
discussions (think Vint Cerf and Nick Gowing at the first IGF
also) cannot be had. If I/we are contrary, then with balance I
can say we are outnumbered, what are the others' excuses?</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>which legitimacy issue?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That ICANN or CIR are preponderantly under US control.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>