[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: no matter may pass out of the DNSO without the expli cit approval of the ga
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [ga] Re: no matter may pass out of the DNSO without the expli cit approval of the ga
- From: James Touton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:58:00 -0800
- CC: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Becky Burr <email@example.com>, commerce <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Connie Morella <Rep.Morella@mail.house.gov>, Elloit Maxwell <email@example.com>, Eric Menge <Eric.Menge@sba.gov>, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, james tierney <email@example.com>, Larry Irving <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Louis L. Touton" <Louis_L._Touton@jonesday.com>, "vinton g. cerf - ISOC" <vcerf@MCI.NET>
- Organization: INEGroup Legal advisory and policy council
- References: <6751E347E374D211857100A0C92563DCA8A521@MAILDC> <3891460A.BF66809D@ix.netcom.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
Jeff and all Assembly members,
Nicely done here Jeff, and thank you.
Jeff Williams wrote:
> Marilyn and all,
> I cannot speak for Roberto or Karl here, whom it seems that this public
> post was more specifically intended for. But as you did post this publicly
> to the Assembly Members, a proper and reasonable thing to do, I feel
> as spokesman for some 98k stakeholders that I have a both and interest
> and an obligation to comment.
> ICANN has several more responsibilities outlined in the White paper
> of equal or possibly even more importance. Those of providing competition
> in the DNS area and stability. And to do so in such a matter where ALL
> stakeholders can participate as "Interested Parties" without exception.
> As to your comments on ICANN's responsibilities that you did mention
> in your response here to more specifically Roberto and Karl, names,
> numbers and protocols. ICANN has not addressed these in a meaningful
> or responsible fashion as some of the latest court filings have obviously
> shown with certain Domain Names. It has not done it's even a basic
> job of protecting privacy with respect the Registration of Domain names
> and the implementation of IPv6. ICANN has not done a proper job in the
> broadening of additional known privately developed protocols such as
> IPv8, MLPI, and advanced versions of BIND for example, amongst
> many others. Instead it is spent a considerable sum in attempting to
> block participation of "Interested Parties" in actively participating
> in the privatization of these areas of responsibility.
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > I don't agree with nor support this recommendation.
> > But I have a broader question for your contemplation. ICANN is responsible
> > for the technical management of three things -- not one, but three: names,
> > numbers, and protocols. I think this suggests that GA would be limiting
> > it's comments/suggestions to the Names Council's work--I'm only seeking
> > clarification of your comment, not commenting on it.
> > Marilyn
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 8:20 PM
> > To: karl@CaveBear.com
> > Cc: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: no matter may pass out of the DNSO without the
> > explicit approval of the ga
> > Karl,
> > >
> > >The basic idea is for the GA to make a formal petition to the ICANN
> > board
> > >to amend the bylaws or articles to give the GA a particular power. And
> > >that power be that the GA would have to approve any matter that flows
> > from
> > >the DNSO to the ICANN board.
> > >
> > >This would place the GA on an equal footing with the NC in terms of
> > >creating domain name policies.
> > I agree on the need of redefining the role of the GA in order to raise
> > its importance in the process, but I just do not see in the current
> > situation how ICANN could take into consideration this kind of petition.
> > If we were working, and producing useful DNS-related contributions, we
> > could reasonably ask to count more, but if the debate is continuing on
> > these topics and with this climate, ICANN is more likely to be tempted
> > to scrap the GA altogether than give it more power.
> > In summary, your idea is good, but there's some prior work to be done in
> > order to make the GA useful, before making it important.
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail firstname.lastname@example.org
> Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at