[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [ga] Older Registrations
Craig is providing in his analysis below the best explanation on why
this debate will be endless, i.e. because there is some truth and some
inexactitude in both statements made so far.
IMHO, USG participated initially in the IAHC with the intention of
providing USG POV in the matter (and therefore with somebody in an
"official" capacity - what's the point otherwise in having somebody at
that high level instead of an obscure clerk?), but as always happens in
political situations, USG never made an open statement that could engage
it in the decisions of the IAHC.
This turned out handy when USG changed attitude (whether this was
because of NSi's lobbying, or whether this was because of genuine
concerns about IAHC not reaching consensus is beyond this debate - and
please do not start this other one, because it will be endless as well).
USG therefore stepped out, starting a new process, with the Green Paper,
and from there we went, little by little, to these days.
So it turns out that there will not be any "formal" proofs of the
initial attitude of USG, because a formal statement of support of the
IAHC has never been issued, in spite of the participation at the highest
level, and there will not be any "formal" proofs of the "disawowement"
of USG of the IAHC, because the "political" formulation for doing this
is just that IAHC did not reach consensus of the community.
But feel free to insist to mutually ask for proofs, just be aware that
few people are still listening. Why? Beacuse whatever the situation in
the past, now the ball is clearly in ICANN's court, and how to influence
ICANN's opinion on the subject is more important than go back to
remember how nice (or bad) the good ol' times were.
>Here's a useful link that touches on the sequence of events leading to
>Strawn's invitation to serve on the IAHC.
>Note the line, "NSF/FNC should contact ISOC concerning US government
>representation on the Internet Society's International Ad Hoc Advisory
>Clearly they did, and Don Heath responded by appointing Stawn. The NSF/
>motivation (and the activity) may have been primarily monitory, but the
>the document say representation. Point to Dave Crocker.
>To be fair to Chris Ambler and Simon Higgs, it's not altogther clear
>the IAHC meetings, Strawn represented himself as holding the formal
office of a
>US agent, or whether he explicitly disavowed that role. Chris says he
did, but I
>can't find any evidence of that. I'm open to pointers. ("Check the
>doesn't cut it.)
>Also, Joe Kelsey's find that the FNC "continues to encourage open
>domain name registration" is certainly no disclaimer, I agree, but it's
>ringing endorsement of the IAHC either.
>I'd like to know what Mr. Strawn says now with regard to these issues.
>he report back to the FNC? Perhaps this time around he will respond to
>request for an interview. I last tried for one in early June 1998.
>email address I'm using for him (email@example.com) is no good. If anyone
>suggestion (or his phone#) please let me know.
>This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
>Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html