In article <19990519125307.AAA27536@LOCALNAME> Kerry wrote:
> Gene,
>> Based on actions we have seen to date, I believe we must be ready
>> for ICANN to make decisions on issues in Berlin REGARDLESS of the
>> quantity or quality of responses to their comment process. I still
>> hold out hope (I hope that I am not the fool).
> Quite so, if by *ready* you mean that when ICANN acts unilaterally
> and without mandate, the wheels of government (yes, good ol
> USG) are in mesh to open an investigation of what on earth the
> functionaries in the DoC think they are doing. There is at least a
> pretense that this process is accountable; who's holding the
> parties to it?
And what mandate does the USG have? They are not accountable.
I cannot vote for the USG. Previous attempts to bring in
organizations that are also accountable to people outside of
the USA like ISOC or the UN were blocked by the USG. The
introduction of competition has been blocked for more than
two years by the USG. It is time to put an end to the
involvement of the USG. The way to do that is by forming a
fully functional ICANN with an elected board and supporting
organizations as soon as possible.
The WIPO recommendations do not represent a consensus. The WIPO
is widely viewed as a special interest organization and not as a
neutral mediator. Accepting the WIPO recommendations while the ICANN
is not yet fully functional and accountable will do more harm than
good. It will give nay-sayers another excuse to turn away from the
path of ICANN, regulation and accountability.
Regards,
--
Onno Hovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
