[discuss] [I-coordination] The self correcting nature of the American system? Judge rules against NSA tapping program. Snowden vindicated?

Thu Dec 19 14:23:13 UTC 2013

Thanks Bob.

I'm happy to take it offline or discuss over coffee when the opportunity
arises.

I would just make the comment that I feel you should have taken your
accusations that registrars run ICANN offline as well.

The evidence you present is at best a sign of registrars getting (in your
eyes) some kind of  preferential treatment. It in no way supports a
statement as sweeping as the one you made.

As a community member, I am as wary of ICANN being captured by one group as
you are.  Undoubtedly, there is constantly an element of push me/shove you
going on with power centers shifting from one group to another depending on
the trending topic of the day.

But to turn that into a conspiracist's "registrars run ICANN" statement on
a public list seems to me like taking things way too far.

Anyway, as you suggest, let's close this topic here and continue on our own
if we wish to.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

On 19 December 2013 14:13, Bob Bruen <korg at coldrain.net> wrote:

>
> Hi Stephane,
>
> Ok, one more time...
>
>
> I have been dealing with Compliance and the whois accuracy problem for
> many years. Registrars have been resisting fixing the whois problem for as
> long as I can remember, in spite of the fact it is in the RAA.
>
> KnujOn has published numerous reports on the topic. The pushback from
> these reports has been strenous. Although none of the basic facts have been
> shown to be wrong, little has been fixed.
>
> - Fadi's public statements about ICANN serving the registrars, his 180
> degree turn from the Toronto meeting to Buenos Aires and private
> communications (which you do not have to accept).
>
> - The firing of staff (and the closing of the Sydney office) who supported
> pressing the registrars by Compliance. There are also private
> communications (same caveat).
>
> - The deliberate failure of ICANN to enforce serious infracions of the RAA.
>
> - There has also been a long push by, for example by law enforcement, the
> Mexico City meeting) to make modifications to the RAA resisted by the
> Registrars and thus delayed or not implemented.
>
> The very idea that ICANN has to negotiate with the Registrars for the RAA
> contract is not reasonable. ICANN gives a license to a Registrar to sell
> domain names. I can't imagine liquor stores, taxi companies or any other
> business that gets the right to exist and make money from a licensing
> agency being able to tell the agency what to do.
>
> IMHO Compliance should be removed from ICANN to a third pary.
>
> I am pretty much done with this topic. unless there is something new. If
> you want to discuss it further or ask questions, please do it directly to
> me, not to the list.
>
>                 --bob
>
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Stephane Van Gelder Consulting wrote:
>
>  Bob,
>>
>
>  Simple question: on what factual evidence do you base your comment that
>> the registrars control ICANN?
>>
>> Stéphane
>>
>> Le mercredi 18 décembre 2013, Bob Bruen a écrit :
>>
>>
> --
> Dr. Robert Bruen
> KnujOn Org
> http://www.knujon.org
> +1.802.579.6288
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131219/30fb83e6/attachment.html>