RE: [ga] DNSO Review
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 7:49 AM
To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; 'email@example.com'
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review
The DNSO review certainly warrants the highest level of attention and
formality that it could get. The NC's decision to NOT create a WG is sending
a signal to the constituencies that this review is not a project of major
I believe that it IS a project of major significance. There are developing
factions within the constituencies that advocate working outside of the
ICANN model, and establishing 'arm's-length, peer-to-peer' relationships
with ICANN. If this happens, it will be clear to the world that ICANN is not
a "global NGO"; in fact it will make ICANN look more like a US-centric shell
company attempting to run and control the world wide Internet.
This would not bode well for the desired (by ICANN) turn-over of control of
the root servers from the US Department of Commerce to ICANN.
One way to bring some of these factions back to the table is the
formalization of the review process, with the very real possibility that
there can and will be some changes.
WG's presumably are composed of individuals, drawn from all the
constituencies, who are interested in achieving a consensus based solution.
While in the WG these individuals presumable subordinate their constituency
politics anough to be logical, rational, and fair to all concerned. (in a
perfect world ;-) )
I would like to see WG level activity for the review.
I would like to see the ICANN original concept succeed.
Peter de Blanc
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Roberto
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 3:24 AM
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review
The current status of the DNSO review process is that the Task Force has
agreed on a set of questions to be asked to all participants
(Constituencies + GA).
The answers arriving before 2000-10-09 will be incorporated by the NC in
its report to ICANN, due 2000-10-13, but the discussion will continue
for a final report, due one week before the ICANN meeting.
For the record, the NC has excluded, for the time being, to create a
formal WG on the subject. I am personally not happy about this, but
anyway there's nothing that prevents us to make the GA list the forum,
and even to vote on a final GA document if GA members feel so.
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