> "[IFWP] has come together to sponsor a
> framework of coordinated international meetings, to be held around
> the world, at which stakeholders will discuss the transition to
> private sector management of the technical administration of
> Internet names and numbers as outlined in the policy "White Paper"
> recently released by the United States Government. These
> international meetings are open to all Internet stakeholders, who
> are encouraged to support this on-going process."
>
> Whether this is what this list is doing right now is open to debate.
> I think a lot of people are frustrated, understandably so, because
> they feel ICANN has not lived up to the requirements of the White
> Paper.
Do you mean understandable that the issue of what percentage of
an interim decision-making board heading up one management
scheme isnt a 'framework' issue?
I would have guessed, from the tone of reactions to the Berkman
and Singapore gatherings, that even the idea of 'coordinated
international meetings' is problematic. What do you suppose it
would take to manage a coordinated *online meeting to discuss the
transition; in other words, to take Dr Z's suggestion seriously that
ICANN is only one of many possible (serial or parallel)
experiments? Would that revive the flagging spirits, do you think?
kerry
