> > What is truly unfortunate is that despite repeated requests you have not
> > addressed the substance of Karl's statements.
> >
> > ICANN willingly and knowingly violated its' own bylaws with the
> > ICANN Interim CEO and counsel present in taking actions to have certain
> > individuals forcibly ejected from a teleconference. Why?
>
> Because ICANN is supposed to respond to public input, and
> overwhelming public input was received that ICANN should revisit its
> earlier position regarding NSI.
Please show us that "overwhelming public input".
You won't. That's because you can't. That "public input" simply does not
exist.
There was no issure of the gTLD's seats prior to the sudden realization in
Berlin, much less public discussion, and much much less any articulated
proposal.
The "overwhelming public input" to which you allude simply did not exist.
> > Is this an issue that will ever be answered when it is asked by the
> > plebs, or will we be forced to have any meaningful question
> > asked by a Congressperson in order to receive an answer?
>
> You already know the answer; it has been given several times.
Please cite where that answer is to be found.
You won't. That's because you can not. That's because such an answer does
not exist.
As far as I have seen, there is merely unsubstantiated handwaving. There
is certainly nothing in the icann comments archives or on the IFWP or any
other mailing list.
You may not like the question, you may find it repetitive. That's because
nothing even approaching a satifactory answer has been offered by ICANN.
The question is an important one. ICANN has repeatedly demonstrated a
lack of ability and willingness to abide by its bylaws. Perhaps there is
a reason. But we are never told. All we see are unsubstantiated claims
of "community consensus", claims that run contrary to what most of us
perceive as reality.
--karl--
