On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
On 10/12/2013 5:25 AM, John Levine wrote:What's most interesting about your sentence is that both parts are phrased in a manner that mostly misses any of the interesting issues about ICANN, and tends to focus the reader on misperceptions and irrelevancies.
ICANN has a long running fantasy that they are a global
multi-stakeholder organization floating above mere politics, and not a
US government contractor incorporated as a California non-profit.
You know there is absolutely nothing in the above that could not be stated as '-1'.
If you can't give a proof point or an explanation then don't bother to say it. John made a factual statement that is true in every important respect. If you disagree with those fact then explain why.
When people try to slap others down in that fashion, I get annoyed.
And I get really annoyed when people talk about important issues that they don't state. Which suggests that the writer is too important to explain them to the lesser beings he is talking at.
The view from the establishment is that ICANN is US property and that is both the US establishment and Russia, China, Brazil and pretty much everywhere else.
The reason that quite a few folk don't want to move ICANN functions into the UN instead is that nobody trusts them either. In fact the group that would be in charge is a bit like the old human rights committee which used to be populated with representatives of the worst abusers because they were the ones who cared most.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/