McTim
Given this community's experience with getting ICANN to pay attention to the overwhelming sentiment of public comment by interested stakeholders, your suggestion that ICANN public comment forums are the only reasonable space for ICANN accountability seems almost laughable. 
--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McTim
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and
> International Conformity - IAIC at IGF?
> 
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Fouad Bajwa <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Robin,
> >
> > There is resistance within the MAG, especially most of the notions
> > against this are coming from MAG members that are already very active
> > inside ICANN Board and belong to the corporate sector
> 
> Janis Karklins is the only MAG member who is also a sitting ICANN
> Board member, and he is a gov't rep, not corporate.
> 
> There are former ICANN Board memebrs on the MAG tho, one an academic,
> one runs a consulting biz here in Kenya, and the other I identify as
> CS, as he is the convenor of AfNOG.
> 
> , even the one
> > from my region whom I thought was the representative of the Civil
> > Society from my region and serves on GNSO....so it is true that the
> > private sector participating on key roles in ICANN has responded very
> > negative
> 
> I'm sure this is because it seems like a bad idea.
> 
> ....can members join the Internet Governance Caucus to the IGF
> > and join this thread:
> 
> I don't understand this at all. On the governance list, Danny Younger
> said:
> 
> "Interesting.  ICANN puts up a public forum dealing with Proposed
> Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability and not a single member of
> this community posts any comments whatsoever.  Instead, community
> members tell us about plenary activities that are held that still
> don't result in any meaningful comments on accountability being put
> through directly to ICANN in a timely fashion.
> 
> If you really cared about ICANN Accountability one would think that
> you would be conveying your concerns directly to ICANN when the
> opportunity presented itself.  Comments may be sent to
> [log in to unmask] until 25 September."
> 
> You seem to have ignored this reality.
> 
> >
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ and as you can read from here how to join us:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/membership
> >
> > If you can gather some more support, I as a MAG member can only help
> > initially to facilitate the process but you dear friends are in a
> > position to bridge the creation of such a dynamic coalition and
> > linking ICANN as you all participate..........I can confirm you that
> > with my discussions with the EU participants at the www.eurodig.org
> > felt this is the right way to go but the people with private sector
> > and commercial roles do not want to to go ahead with this.
> 
> 
> Well, I am a CS person, and disagree with you.  If you want to have an
> impact on ICANN, you can't do it via the IGF.
> 
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel