[At-Large] Multistakeholderism Explained (was Re: ICANN75: Mandatory Funded Traveler Registration for Roberto Gaetano)
Antony Van Couvering
avc at avc.vc
Wed Jul 27 19:51:46 UTC 2022
My comments were intended to provoke a discussion about the form of governance that ICANN uses, not as a forum to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia. Most sources have errors, therefore it is wise to use more than one and compare them to gauge their reliability. My sources are my own experiences at ICANN, discussions with ICANN staffers, and a general knowledge of different political systems, along with references to public sources as references for my quotations.
Your dislike of Wikipedia, absent any actual showing of error, is beside the point.
If you are interested in the discussion of ICANN governance, I invite you to respond substantively to the arguments I have presented. If you have other sources of information that inform the discussion, I invite you to present them to buttress your arguments. If you would like to discuss the reliability of Wikipedia, I invite you to start a new thread. If you dislike the argument I presented but you have no thoughts or evidence to refute or modify it other than by changing the subject, then perhaps you should sit this one out.
Something is either true or not true, regardless of who said it. Please respond to the substance.
> On Jul 27, 2022, at 12:24 PM, Alberto Soto Roldan <alberto at soto.net.ar> wrote:
> Wikipedia fails in its conception. There have been many "orientations" of ideas, concepts, only based on particular interests. Who guarantees that what is published is correct?
> Some examples:
> https://www.opengovpartnership.org/es/multistakeholder-forums/ <https://www.opengovpartnership.org/es/multistakeholder-forums/>
> https://o11.me/imcsl <https://o11.me/imcsl>
> https://o11.me/9MIjb <https://o11.me/9MIjb>
> https://o11.me/VDznt <https://o11.me/VDznt>
>> El 27 jul. 2022, a las 16:13, Antony Van Couvering <avc at avc.vc <mailto:avc at avc.vc>> escribió:
>> If you disagree, it would be good to hear why. In this case, Wikipedia is absolutely accurate and if you can show me where it is not accurate I will adjust accordingly. I used it because it is easy to access and read and in this case it is accurate.
>> All you have said so far is that you do not agree, and while that is a data point, it does not advance discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large