[discuss] ICANN accountability and Internet Governance Principles
seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Thu Apr 3 20:32:54 UTC 2014
I spoke up to indicate that the partisanship of the proceeding
shouldn't distract from the fact that they didn't really get into the
issue. And to say it wasn't helpful or necessary to comment in those
terms here. This is just what happens in Congressional hearings these
days. Not sure how much your comments require me to respond, but I
don't think it useful to comment further in this connection anyway.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> At 16:42 03/04/2014, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> But that hearing was a staged divide just to keep the legislative branch
>> in contention, not actually a real interrogation of the nature of the issue.
> This is not the reading of L. Strickling who considers that the wold is
> "split" on the issue. And explains that we have 5 years and half to address
> the issue. It means that he does not see this as a local partisan issue.
> Things are definitly more complex and complicate than discussed on this
> mailing list. This is probably why he has delegated the burden to act as a
> discussion front-end to ICANN and a rod-lightning.
> IMHO up to 5 1/2 years gives the USG time enough to see if ICANN survives
> the concept of change and how. IMHO, the world will decide on real and
> demonstrated proposition alternatives. The test is to see if the edge
> providers ally into some ICANN alternative or not, how the civil society
> behaves, what ISOC actually proposes. ICANN might be the ultilmate winner,
> but it is for now in competition and show that it is the best in being able
> to fairly document its possible alternatives or complements.
> Not an easy task.
More information about the discuss