<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Whether ICANN should continue with domain name
functions or whether ITU should take them over is a bit of a
self-serving strawman argument. I have not seen any serious
proposal with any serious backing in this regard. What is often
sought however by developing countries, with serious proposals on
the table as well, is to subject ICANN to a genuinely
international oversight mechanism which is embedded in
international law and its authority. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 27 September 2014 02:25 AM,
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJwbTiBXMKjxWUjW4qXCW6WHeGEDWNTTc3TaWv1iBJXupNc2cw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>As I read through all the email discussions, I could
not help wondering whether there should be greater
awareness done on the roles of stakeholders within the
ecosystem. The content of the discussions in relation to
domain name racket I could not follow through properly but
whilst people are still putting all their eggs in the
domain name basket with the gTLD process, hardly anyone
talks about the dotless domains and the implication for
the current value of the domain name. Can the domain name
and dotless domain name be likened to PSTN and NGN in
terms of transition? Is it inevitable that the world will
shift from domains to more dotless domains or are dotless
domains are just a fly by night.<br>
<br>
</div>
Personally I prefer ICANN over ITU any day in terms of being
open to hearing the voices of diverse community. ICANN has
built in mechanisms for input into various processes. ITU on
the other hand remains a closed trunk available only to
Governments, Regulators and ICT Private Sector who can
afford it, and they have no capacity to be flexible to
absorb civil society. In terms of accountability, ICANN
leads as all its reports are published open and online and
available for easy access by anyone except <i>some</i> of
the SSAC reports.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>However, I can also understand why, sometimes being the
oldest UN organisation can make this resistant to change to
be more relevant with the dynamics of time. ITU has done
fantastic work building and developing toolkits for diverse
initiatives within the ICT space and should be commended.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
The ITU has also begun using multistakeholder in their
various speeches just as ICANN does for some time now.<br>
<br>
</div>
However, despite my preferences, I can say that both
organisations have greater room for even more improvement.
However, to do that we as civil society must first get our act
together and figure out architecturally, the kind of changes
we would like to see happening in the ecosystem to amplify the
voice of the common man and the inclusion of <b>ALL</b> our
voices.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>At the same time, we have to come to the realisation that
we can treat and respect individual organisations as unique
with distinct roles and mandates and perhaps that will make us
less likely to try to want to fit square pegs in round holes.<br>
<br>
:) <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>