<html><head></head><body>Hi,<br>
<br>
While I have been largely silent on the list while waiting for my charges against another member to be processed, I need to respond to one point:<br>
<br>
"<br>
There is no possibility of the ICANN Board reversing these decisions, no political games from governments, etc. Truly multi-equal stakeholderism.<br>
"<br>
<br>
NCSG its currently engaged in lengthy appeal against a situation where this its indeed our accusation, that the board did indeed reverse bottom up decisions.<br>
<br>
I think there are lots of positive values in ICANN's implementation of a multi stakeholder organization, and I am committed to its preservation, I am also committed to its improvement, and recognizing imperfections its part of that process. As part of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team this year (it happens every few years, a marvelous instantiation of bottom up soft oversight) the notion of Board infallibility and of the absence of appeals mechanisms has been an issue.<br>
<br>
And whether the governments play political games or not is an issue of open debate.<br>
<br>
Btw our draft report its still open for comment.<br>
<br>
Avri<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><cc list trimmed><br /><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com" target="_blank">jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Agree with you Tracy regarding the timely and appropriate recommendation. I was emphasizing that "globalization" would be quite a stretch for what is still the ICANN statUS-quo today.</div>
</blockquote><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Which status quo is that? The one where the US gets to say what goes into the root? If so, you may want to ask Amazon, Patagonia and .gcc (amongst others) what is the current status quo.</div>
<div><br /></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> I do believe that "globalization" would mean much more than "internationalization", the latter meaning more or less a simple expansion (conquest...)<div>
<br /></div><div>One question though: is ICANN thinking of institutionalizing itself, or getting representative of more parties, or both? What's behind ICANN internationalization? I still wonder. Is this wording able to please/trap the multilateral layer of the IG, the nation states and the CS by the same token? Is this word used to give an institutional shine to ICANN, so to be seen as some kind of international organization (multilateral system). But then, if so, will ICANN use an empty concept such as "equal footing"? Equal footing sounds 'cool' but it's empty when it comes to decision making.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Actually it is not. There are some ICANN processes where decisions are still made in a process where everyone has the same voice, there is no voting, no representation, no silos. Everyone comes together on lists and in person to forge consensus. There is no possibility of the ICANN Board reversing these decisions, no political games from governments, etc. Truly multi-equal stakeholderism.</div>
<div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div>-- <br />Cheers,<br /><br />McTim<br />"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
Avri Doria</body></html>