Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.
just a few points:
At 12:33 03.06.2001 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
>(1) The Names Council is looking to save money. That's what they say,
>anyway. I see that as quite false. In fact, yesterday's webcast made in
>quite clear they had a "slush fund" which they could draw on if needed. And
>ICANN should fund them, anyway.
>BTW Was I mistaken or did Verisign just cough up $100,000? What was that
>for? And what did Verisign get in return? Do you believe pure generosity
>of spirit !!!
The 100.000 was "matching funds" - if others coughed up their part,
Verisign would allocate a similar amount.
>(2) There is censorship afoot. Purportedly because of (1) the Names
>Council wants to close down some lists. They already suggested closing
>GA-FULL and I reckon that's just being held over until after the Sotckholm
>conference. The one sublist that was really taking off was GA-ROOTS. So
>naturally naysayers attacked it -- a good excuse.
There will be no NC working group on the issue. This does not mean that the
list should be closed. Don't believe it until you see it.
>(3) Alternate Roots !! Probably the most critical issue to face ICANN in
>the world today. In fact, they have the potential to completely undermine
>the whole structure. And I really don't care if it is having *right now* --
>it certainly COULD and I think WILL. But the argument is that the subject
>is *out of scope*. Perhaps a standard line from ICANN staff.
>But it's a clever trick. It means that the Names Council CAN and almost
>certainly WILL close down the GA-ROOTS mailing list at any time they like.
see above. My opinion is that "alternate roots" are a Bad Idea, and
unlikely to have any big influence anyway. But I think having a GA sublist
to have that argument on is a Good Thing.
>(4) The ICANN CEO, Stuart Lynn came up with his own policy statement.
>This received mixed reviews but they were mostly negative. Apart from the
>content, I think he made several mistakes in his approach. But he's new to
>the job and doesn't quite understand all the dynamics yet. My guess is that
>Kent Crispin wrote the statement and Stuart appended his name afterwards.
>Whatever the truth the ICANN view is quite clear. Wrong but clear ;-)
You're wrong. Stuart wrote it himself, drawing on other sources. The points
he got wrong are points that Kent would never have missed.
And there have been a lot of people agreeing with him.
>One more point. It has been argued that my intention in setting up a Roots
>mailing list was to "capture" the debate. More FUD. Moving the debate to a
>separate list just "allowed" the debate room to breathe. It also sheltered
>the main GA list from a lot of hostility.
I think GA-ROOTS was a Good Idea. And I think we'll keep it.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html