Robert Guerra wrote:
my recent posts on the issue of the fall meeting and internet freedom and how it can be discussed inside ICANN, come not as a result of a "Red Bull binge" as some might suggest - but after consultation and discussion with numerous internet experts, users and NGOs at last week's computers, Freedom & Privacy conference at Yale University. Specifically, the request that ICANN comment on rights at the upcoming Egypt meeting came from the session on Internet Freedom & during the open discussion on technology policy recommendations to the new US administration.
Perhaps the real challenge is educating groups such as the CFP attendees about the actual -- as opposed to wishful thinking -- objectives of ICANN. Indeed, isn't that one of the explicit mandates of At-Large -- educating the public, and dispelling myths, about ICANN? Are you fulfilling your role, as a sitting member of ALAC, by allowing unchallenged the myth that ICANN's mandate includes issues such as Internet content censorship?
Thought many on this list might not believe internet freedom should be discussed inside ICANN, suffice it to say that others have a different opinion.
How benevolent of them. How many of those others understand the limits of ICANN's mandate? How many of this mainly-US audience was understanding of the diverse needs of ICANN's global community? What did you do, as a member of ALAC, to educate them? I note that if someone does a search for "ICANN" at http://cfp.wikia.com/wiki/CFP08 one sees only a single match; a single participant' s vague lumping of ICANN together with WIPO, WTO and other "governance institutions". Hardly a call to arms. Just as well, too. - Evan