StupidScript - 12:30 am on Oct 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

1) The United Nations did not "propose changes" to anything, yet. That's a CNet headline writer's term. So far, this year's U.N. meeting about the Internet has only had speakers representing their own constituencies making opening statements. No proposals.

2) Examining some of the potential issues reveal them to be largely of political nature. Some countries are bummed that THEY aren't "in charge" of the Internet and are using any forum they can to get headlines by criticizing the way the U.S. through ICANN is handling things. To date, not a single entity other than U.S.-based interests has come up with any substantial proposal (for real) that would qualify as a replacement or even a substantial modification of the currently revised U.S. Department of Commerce/ICANN agreement nor has anyone come up with plans that demonstrate the submitters' (a) ability to manage the same set of tasks, (b) finance the same set of tasks or (c) move into the future of domain governance with anything like competence, (relative) transparency and a true understanding of the scope of the tasks.

People call for change all the time, but few are those who are prepared to make the change happen, and fewer still are prepared to take the responsibility inherent in such change.

<edit>I refer you to the actual text [intgovforum.org] of the opening ceremonies. The writer from CNet is either on an agenda or he's too wrapped up in something else to be able to appreciate Mr. Utsumi's remarks. There was no mention of the United States in Mr. Utsumi's remarks, which could easily apply to the United Nations or any other major player or group of players.</edit>

[edited by: StupidScript at 12:45 am (utc) on Oct. 31, 2006]