Milton Mueller a �crit:
>
> I think Roberts deserves praise for engaging in the debate.
Mr. Roberts is feeling the bite of growing criticism and needs to
justify himself.
> This is a conversation we
> need to have.
Yes, but in a different forum, an open forum, where there is true
transparency and true public participation, not in this closed and
vicious circle that the DOC and John Postel have sunk us into.
> The Chairman of the GAC claimed in public that governments
> around the world played a major role in "making ICANN happen." Is ICANN a way of
> avoiding government control, or is it a way of avoiding the procedural restrictions
> and public oversight that typically accompany government action, at least in
> democracies?
Paul Twomey has recently refused to grant administration of .AU to a
coalition of persons and organizations who wish to run it in the
interests of the community, apparently for the reason that the
telcos and big business wouldn't then have control of it. Mr. Twomey
has been instrumental in getting the government censorship of web
content approved in Australia. He has threatened the Internet
community, at the Berlin meeting, with direct government
intervention if anyone successfully opposed ICANN's policies. He is
clearly unfit to lead a governmental advisory committee, even if
such a committee were justified.
> > 3. The WIPO Report
> > the ICANN Board did not "adopt" the
> > WIPO report in its action on May 27; instead, it took a series of
> > detailed steps which included referring the majority of the report to
> > its newly constituted Domain Name Supporting Organization for analysis,
> > review and recommendation.
Yes, now that the DNSO has been captured, with the collusion of the
ICANN board, by the ISOC/CORE/INTA coalition that is favorable to
the WIPO recommendations.
