[governance] Re: Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .?? (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?

[David Allen]

Since discussion advances with evidence and logic, let's take the next  
steps with facts and analysis.

Quoting from below, in reverse and various order.

> There are system weaknesses that may be corrected with the  
> transparent monitoring and review through the public feedback about  
> the direct influence reflected on decisions of the external public  
> services.


_Long_ years - and years - of experience make clear that this most  
decidedly is not so.

Various reviews of the organization - over years - have spotlighted  
the problem of 'transparency,' of 'accountability.'  Which are polite  
forms of identifying this mess, a mess which corrodes any real  
prospect for ICANN's legitimacy, which is itself fundamental to being  
an efffective public service.

Despite such 'review through public feedback,' as specified in the  
quote above, over those long years the problem has continued on.  As  
said, acknowledged by those with intimate familiarity.

The above quoted statement is flatly contradicted by experience.

> We can understand that what was happen and what were the reasons of  
> the consequences but can’t use these examples [Bulgaria and Greece]  
> as an evidence to justify and to rectify the problems.


As George Santayana said so quotably, "Those who will not learn  
history are condemned to repeat its mistakes."  (Words to that effect.)

To suppose that we cannot use data as evidence is to cripple any  
serious effort to learn, so as to live in a better world.

> every organization has its own culture which is not followed by any  
> pre-written governance.


ICANN is not 'any' - or an example of 'every' - organization.  This  
organization supposedly serves the entire world community of seven  
billion.  Either, over the by-now long years of its existence, it  
manages to find a stance - and culture - which legitimately serves the  
whole public, not a tiny coterie.  Or ...

> Such criticism has negative influence on the enthusiasm of the  
> volunteer activities and will leads to the situation of voluntarily  
> burnout.


> It does not mean that opens discussion about the criticism on the  
> organization or to use harsh language and quoting hard bashing  
> stances.


If the thought quoted just above had also encompassed the full  
constituency supposedly served, including the states of the world, the  
full perspective might be clear.

This list has for some time, and recently, been discussing the very  
real efforts by various empowered actors, such as some states, to find  
a suitable replacement for ICANN.  Why do we think they may be so  
motivated?

There are a number of reasons of course.  And some of those reasons  
are not so savory.  But certainly one sustaining reason perceives how  
ICANN serves a small group, not the interests of the world body  
politic.  And of course therefore not necessarily the legitimate  
interests of each of those actors who have moved on to seek  
alternatives.

The interest, in ICANN, by some of these empowered actors, among them  
some states, has _long ago_ 'burned out.'  Their 'hard bashing stance'  
was clear.  But instead of saying so forthrightly, instead of  
'criticizing,' such as on a list of this sort, they simply have moved  
on, to find and erect alternatives.


Speaking accurately is the one hope to move to a better place.  Rather  
than keeping facts from view.


As to ICANN volunteers, and staff:  Imagine ICANN volunteers who have  
spent years, hard work and well done, only to find their work  
summarily dismissed and ignored.  Those volunteers, and there are  
plenty of them, 'burned out' - long ago.  Because ICANN did not  
correct itself - not because of any 'criticism' here, obviously.   
Staff, unfortunately, live with the aura of the organization from  
which they come.


I must apologize for not being able to converse in Urdu.  I apologize  
because I may not be understanding accurately all the author of the  
post is trying valiantly to convey, in my language, English.

However.

Dialog ensues productively when we discuss ideas, the facts and the  
analysis around them.  Not when the person is the focus.  That  
threatens to become ad hominem - an attack on the person, which is  
both uncivil and disrupts the prospect for useful exchange among  
differing ideas.

The above - and I strongly encourage throughout - addresses just the  
ideas, the facts and analysis surrounding (it is not addressed to the,  
or to a, person).

David

On Nov 13, 2011, at 2:04 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:

> David, every organization has its own culture which is not followed  
> by any pre-written governance. Ex-ICANN staff was expressing the  
> limitations of internal culture just to gain coverage of cultural  
> weaknesses against the criticism about the flaws highlighted in  
> recent discussion. It does not mean that opens discussion about the  
> criticism on the organization or to use harsh language and quoting  
> hard bashing stances. There are few paid staff member among the  
> groups of hundreds of the volunteers. Such criticism has negative  
> influence on the enthusiasm of the volunteer activities and will  
> leads to the situation of voluntarily burnout.
>
> There are system weaknesses that may be corrected with the  
> transparent monitoring and review through the public feedback about  
> the direct influence reflected on decisions of the external public  
> services. Bulgaria and Greek are two example that also reflecting  
> the direct influence on the external public services of IDN ccTLDs.  
> We can understand that what was happen and what were the reasons of  
> the consequences but can’t use these examples as an evidence to  
> justify and to rectify the problems.
>
> Imran
>
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org]  
> On Behalf Of David Allen
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 02:17 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Re: Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .?? (.bg)  
> similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
>
> It has been said here more than once that ICANN is a corrupt  
> organization.
>
> The details that have come out, below - the recent discussion in  
> Bulgaria sketched and analyzed, below - are just one of the many  
> smoking guns, with actual evidence beginning to peek through  
> unmistakably in this case, despite attempts to obfuscate.
>
> Only beginning to peek out, not the full story.  But introductory of  
> the the larger story.
>
> To perform its public service function, ICANN must serve the many  
> interests evenhandedly.  Instead, it has been beholden - in the  
> policy outcomes actually implemented - to the interests of a tiny  
> group of actors, those who fund it.  That is corrupt.
>
> If ICANN were faithful to a bottoms-up process, that could be a  
> start on public service that might have integrity.  Instead, ICANN  
> staff decisions - from whatever staff - have in the end dismissively  
> ignored long and grueling bottoms-up work and have, on germane  
> decisions, taken steps with prospect to enrich ICANN's tiny coterie  
> of funders.
>
> The polite form of this complaint has become an increasingly angry  
> shout, now ironically from ICANN's past master, the US government:   
> "Be accountable."  The more direct statement - as the failure of  
> accountability has glared ever more bluntly over long years of  
> demands for reform - is:  "Corrupt."
>
> Not just governments - and yes of course, also numerous governments  
> besides the US government - see this stinking mess.  More than one  
> individual who are privy, and at the very core of the beast, have  
> acknowledged this corruption.
>
> This unacceptable state of affairs is sadly all too evident.
>
> David
>
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I reject the accusation of ICANN Staff Bashing.  I see it as yet  
> another new Political Correctness  directive to limit freedom of  
> speech.  So sorry as much as I love many ICANN Staffers, I beleive  
> that ICANN Staff, as corporate operational entity, is in error here  
> and needs to be called on it.  I did not say they were bad people.
>
> When the ICANN Staff makes implementation decisions that are  
> contrary to policy decisions, they should be called on it.  And no  
> amount of Bashing Alleged Staff Bashers makes any difference to  
> those discussions.  Yes, I expect it is mostly due to decisions by  
> Senior ICANN Staff, and that most staffers are just following orders  
> for fear of losing their jobs in a bad economy.  We have seen what  
> happens in ICANN to those who disagree with senior management.  So  
> the poor bashed ICANN Staffers have my sympathy, but I do not  
> beleive that I am the ICANN Staff Basher.
>
> In this case, the implementation on harmful confusing similarity  
> goes beyond what is written in the Policy and is establishing  
> Policy.    Those implementation decisions by ICANN has not been  
> subject to adequate bottom-up process.  And in some cases it goes  
> beyond what is written in the recommendations. Also the restriction  
> against 2 character IDN ccTLD is not in Fast Track document which  
> says: "1. the string must be a minimum of two characters long (U- 
> label), " <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-16nov09-en.pdf 
> >
>
> Since this issue is not a topic in any of the ICANN groups as far as  
> I know, e.g the At-Large where I think it belongs, I think it is  
> good that as the problem becomes apparent to IGC, which is a major  
> civil society aggregator, we discuss it here and that we take action  
> on it.  I am hoping that At-Large and other groups may take up the  
> topic in the near future, that is why I think we should forward any  
> letter we may write to the ALAC as well as to the ICANN Board.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 10 Nov 2011, at 09:58, Tina Dam wrote:
>
>
> Hi Avri, thanks for the report from me as well.
>
>
> But, I must say though that I am very surprised about your bashing  
> ofICANN Staff. I obviously really do not like that and I don't find  
> ituseful at all. If that is what this list is for then it certainly  
> isnot for me.
>
> Avri, you of all people must know how hard ICANN staff works to  
> followprocesses and work with all the different stakeholder groups  
> to ensurefair implementation - yes that is, through the bottom-up  
> processes.
>
> In terms of implementing the Fast Track Process this was done  
> viacountless meetings and online public forums etc discussing  
> andreviewing several proposed implementation plans that follows  
> thepolicy papers and reports provided by the community. You were  
> inseveral of those meetings.
>
> Certainly it is never possible to fulfill every single  
> personsrequests, but I think we got really really close and so did  
> others.Alternatively the implementation would have not been approved.
>
> About the restriction against any 2-char that resembles  
> ASCIIcharacters - this has to do with the history of how country- 
> codes aredecided upon. That is, via the ISO list. It may not be a  
> very usefulrestriction, but a new ICANN process should not be  
> against an alreadyexisting process. If this is to changed then an  
> agreement must be madewith ISO that ICANN can use such 2-char  
> combinations and that ISO isnot delegating them in the future.
>
> That may be more logically, but until this has been decided upon  
> Ireally see no issue with ICANN having that limitation. I could  
> neverbe certain, but I would guess the conversation on this list  
> would havebeen completely different if an ICANN process would cause  
> issues forexample for the ISO list and their future implementations  
> on thatlist.
>
> Tina
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was in Bulgaria for the domain.forun at which Rod spoke.
>
> Of course I do not know what Rod and Parvanov spoke about.  But in  
> other statements Rod, and Veni both made, they hid behind the bottom- 
> up process and stated that it was rejected because of the bottom-up  
> process and said that if the Bulgarians and Greeks wanted to change  
> the rules they needed to go back to the ccNSO.  It is amazing how  
> many time they invoked bottom-up process to defend unpopular Staff  
> decisions - it was the mantra of the day.
>
> Of course they never spoke of what bottom-up decisions they were  
> talking about.  Was there a bottom-up decision about what sort of  
> things were confusing similar?  Was there a bottom-up decision about  
> a lack of transparency and the absence of an appeal of an arbitrary  
> decision or an extended review procedure?  No, these are ICANN  
> implementation details.  I was an observer of the ccNSO group that  
> made recommendations, and these issues never came up.  And for the  
> GNSO, no matter how much the bottom-up process has requested an  
> extended review for confusing similarity, it has been rejected by  
> the ICANN Staff.  ICANN Staff has decided on its own that it is  
> supreme when it comes to harmful confusing similarity.  I remember  
> no bottom-up decisions giving ICANN staff supremacy in any topic,  
> let alone this one.
>
> Another disturbing thing came up during these meetings.  There was a  
> new notion introduced by those who spoke for ICANN.  I must note  
> that I may have misunderstood it because some of it came from ICANN  
> Staffers speaking in Bulgarian so I only heard a translation, but it  
> sounded like the following:
>
> In any review of Cyrillic or Greek characters, not only do they have  
> to  worry about existing LDH (letter digit hyphen) ASCII TLDs, but  
> also myst complete with potential LDH ASCII that might be applied  
> for some day.  This notion was extend not only to un-allocated ISO 2  
> character designations but to any Cyrillic or Greek TLD that may  
> look similar to LDH characters.
>
> I.e. the notion I got out was that if the Cyrillic or Greek looks  
> anything like ASCII, they can't have it.  ASCII trumps all. While  
> this is bad, considering the stretch ICANN Staff makes when making  
> these decision (б looks like b - really???), it is really awful.  
> From the discussions I understood this would apply in gTLDS as much  
> as it does in ccTLDs.
>
> If I understood correctly, this is a bad thing, and this issue  
> of .бг is just the tip of the iceberg of a really serious defect in  
> the ICANN process for new TLDs.
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
> On 9 Nov 2011, at 10:06, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
> As I can see from the ICANN website, ICANNs Rod Beckstrom had a  
> meeting with the Bulgarian president Mr. Parvanow, the day before  
> yesterday (November 7). Did the Bulgarian president raise the issue  
> of .bg and what was Beckstroem response?
>
> Thanks
>
> wolfgang
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111113/d2b88b88/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t