ICANN needs you!


Can you compare the past out-reach exercises and the present one?
You know, process and outcomes.

I'm thinking of the process and outcome of the MITF exercise of 2002/3.

It is now seven years since the issue of appropriation of tribal names
was brought to the attention of the ICANN BoD in an ICANN VI-B(3)(b)(7)
Constituency Application. The situation remains unchanged. On a personal
note, I still recall then-CEO Michael Roberts telling me to just take what
the IPC offered (nothing), as the ICANN bus was leaving the station.

It is now six years since the issue of code point allocation by the iso3166
maintenance agency and indigenous governments was brought to the attention
of the ICANN BoD in WG-C (draft-icann-dnso-wgc-naa-01.txt). The situation
remains unchanged.

The model of an sTLD was adopted, but sex.pro was not what we'd in mind.

Had Jon not died, we might have had a solution along the lines of x.121
(and now ASO RIRs) regional DSO registries, or a .ps-like work-around.

We going on the third year of .iq being dark, with no trust operator, and
no contact initiated by ICANN with the Sponsoring Organization, still in
a US pokey for an exports infraction (they freighted a PC to Malta, which
the forwarding agent then sent to Lybia, and may have freighted a PC to
Syria, about an hour's drive from Beruit). From Louis to the BoD @ Rome
to Vint and Paul over the winter holidays, ICANN has been aware and the
situation remains unchanged.

The .ORG evaluation was rediculous. The evaluator was not independent
or posses subject matter expertise.

The .NET evaluation was rediculous. The evaluator ... ditto.

The control of the DSO et seq by the IPC ("whois") is rediculous.

The vanishing of the ISP Constituency (self-inflicted, but rational in
the context, see the prior item) is rediculous.

When I look at my years of non-accomplishment, and ICANN's years of little
accomplishment, I don't see a lot a rational person could take a lot of
pride in, or want to be associated with. Your milage may vary.

You are correct that "[t]he archives of NANOG are riddled with complaints
and comments about the lack of competent representation and influence for
the networking community within ... ICANN."

An alternative to asking for a new crop of possibly decorative worker bee
candidates to self- or other-identify for a possibly decorative nomination
and selection process is to identify one of more of those existing "complaints
and comments" and attempt to act upon it or them.

Beauty pagents and member pageout events aren't the same as working a task
to a scheduled completion.


P.S. If discussion of the latest ICANN process event does not belong on
NANOG, does its announcement?

How about supporting alternatives to ICANN, which are getting
more and more widespread and accepted like www.public-root.com
and www.inaic.com ?