And I had so hoped he had gone away.
el On 25. Sep 2022, 17:23 +0200, Y Mshana <[email protected]>, wrote: > Oh no! Not again after all those years.. > 🤯 > > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2022, 15:59 Dr Eberhard W Lisse, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Some thoughts on the session: > > > > > > Basically most of the session time was wasted with > > > approximately 10 addresses by the usual suspects all of which > > > had the same content, namely exactly zero. > > > > > > This is not new, it has been unchanged approximately since I > > > have attended the first meeting many years ago. > > > > > > The only exception was Alan Barrett who then however faced > > > headwind for making the practical and good suggestion of > > > clients to engage their providers if and when these do not > > > provide Universal Access. > > > > > > Several speakers (in particular the (outgoing African) Board > > > Members who should have ample opportunity to actually do > > > something about it (but NEVER do)) pontificated about how > > > important it would be to have ICANN Meetings in Africa. > > > > > > While I am all in favor of that, in particular in Namibia, the > > > Chair wasted the opportunity to engage ICANN's CEO on this, > > > which had to be done by Sébastien Bachollet and even in > > > English, pointing out that one of the reasons to create the > > > smaller ICANN (policy) meetings was to have reduced > > > requirements in oder to be able to hold meetings in developing > > > countries. > > > > > > Of course he was fobbed off, and, in a manner which I consider > > > bordering the line of ICANN's Standards of Acceptable > > > Behavior. > > > > > > The point is not that we need to have meetings in all ICANN > > > regions and in particular in Africa, which we do, and we all > > > know that, the question is why ICANN is not doing it or > > > anything about it? > > > > > > Well, I think, this is because the "paying" stakeholders do > > > not wish to meet in less than 5 star environments close to > > > major airports, let alone transit. > > > > > > This US-centricity which is patently obvious in so many ICANN > > > aspects is, in my view, not compatible with the multi > > > stakeholder model. > > > > > > Fortunately there was no time to review or even debate the > > > "statement", which mostly nobody reads, but most certainly is > > > never acted upon. > > > > > > greetings, el > > > -- > > > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist > > > [email protected] / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) > > > PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht \ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP > > > 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No 4 of 2019 may apply > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > AfrICANN mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/africann
_______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/africann
