[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

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:roberto.gaetano@voila.fr]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 8:20 PM
> > To: karl@CaveBear.com
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > 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
> Regards,
> --
> 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 jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

James Touton
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
INEGRoup (Stakeholder)

NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at