DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

Thanks Harald.

Actually, I think it will be hard for the NC to kill off the GA-ROOTS now
after Stuart's comments that the issue needs to be debated.  Perhaps he will
support the retention of the mailing list should the NC move to stop it.
Poor Mueller seemed very disappointed that he couldn't get anywhere with
rational analysis !!

Persnally I think two years is too long.  Things will have come to the boil
long before then.  Although I do think it will take much more than two years
before the problem is solved.

In hindsight I was wrong to suggest Kent wrote the policy statement.  I
trust Stuart as both honest and professional and I apologise to him again.
It was coincidental that Kent Crispin had also written on the same issue.

I'd like, if we can, to work our way through Stuart's paper.  Like it or
not, it is the principal statement on the table and needs to be addressed

And let's all do our best to keep the GA-ROOTS as it is the only place where
the issue CAN be debated.  I am also glad that Danny mentioned its

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

BTW I missed you at the microphone.  It's fun to see what people look like

----- Original Message -----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>
To: Alternate Chair <patrick@quad.net.au>
Cc: Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>; [ga] <ga@dnso.org>; M. Stuart
Lynn, ICANN <lynn@icann.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

> Patrick,
> 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.
> >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
> >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
> >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
> list should be closed. Don't believe it until you see it.
> >(3)    Alternate Roots !!  Probably the most critical issue to face ICANN
> >the world today.  In fact, they have the potential to completely
> >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
> >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
> 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
> >content, I think he made several mistakes in his approach.  But he's new
> >the job and doesn't quite understand all the dynamics yet.  My guess is
> >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
> 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
> >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
> >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 ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>