Re: [ga] The Real World - Part/round II

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Marilyn and all assembly members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Marc,
>
> I won't debate the number of seats for users or who users are, given the present ICANN evolution and Reform. I make one comment, you seem to think that business, institutional, non commercial users don't count... but only individual users..

  You missed Marc's point entirely Marilyn.  But that's also not all that
surprising.  You bet that business ( Especially small business ),
institutional and non commercial users count!  But individual users
count more because they are far and away the largest group.
And THAT was Marc's point as well as NAIS's, ours, and
a huge host of others with respect to the ALSC's flawed
and unrepresentative, Final report.

>
>
> I think that we should all reexamine how to ensure broad, stable participation and representation, and that is why I've personally supported the At Large recommendations.

  See my above and the ALSC's forum archives Marilyn.  They do not
support your view.

>
>
> You must be joking if you equate the registrars and registries with the business users. Don't mistake us. WE are users.

  Yes indeed.  But only a tiny portion of the stakeholder/user's...

>
>
> If you want better enforcement by ICANN OF THE CONTRACTS, that is interesting and important, and I suspect you will find support.... but not clear from your post WHAT  you want. I'm interesting in learning your concerns, but let me note for others who may decide to respond as well,  that I have both ICANN related and day job work to do, and will read coherent, and organized posts, not rants.

  Good point here.  And I agree.  BTW, this very comment sounds allot like
a rant Marilyn...  So perhaps practicing what you preach here would be
in order?  >:)  But back to what you say you want to read...

1.) The ICANN BoD and Staff MUST formulate and AT-Large
as per the White Paper and the MoU.  It is long past time to have
accomplished this.

2.) The ICANN BoD and especially the ICANN Staff MUST enforce
vigorously their own Registry and Registrar contracts without exception
or other consideration.  So far they not only have not done so but have
specifically refused publicly, to do so.

3.) Policy issue determination must be the business of any and all stakeholders
as per the MoU and the White Paper.  So far the ICANN BoD and in particular
the ICANN Staff have continually blocked any effort for this to be accomplished
and put into effect.

4.) The Board Squatters must resign immediately and without further due.
     Than hold open elections, open to any and all self defined
     stakeholders/users or other interested parties in accordance
     with the White Paper and the MoU, to fill these BoD seats as
     well as the full nine (9) that the ICANN BoD promised without delay...

5.) DNSO policy related issues must be determined by the participants
present and future that directly relate to them or the DNS indirectly.
Currently this is not being done either or is severally restricted to the
extent that only a "Chosen Few" have such determination...

6.) Transparency and openness - Any and all policy considerations
are the business of any and all stakeholders or interested parties as
put forth in the White Paper and the MoU.  So far, this too has been
perdiciously thwarted or blocked in one way or form or another
to the extent that routing around ICANN is becoming a more
standard practice.  That is bad for the internet, and bad for the
stakeholder/user, present and especially future...

  I could go on and on here Marilyn, but I think you get the gist...

>
>
> As far as alternate roots are concerned, one should think about history. In this country very long ago, and in Europe and Mexico, not so long ago, different telephone companies served distinct user groups. IF one wanted to reach someone on a "different root", one contacted the operator, who "connected" the roots... meaning disparate  groups of users.

  And thankfully the Judge Green decision in 1980 affirmed that CHOICE in
a free market system is king.  So again there are many Long distance companies
that can serve many different groups of consumers/stakeholders/users and
companies like AT&T must share those networks to link through whether
they want to or not.  Yet we see that companies LIKE AT&T are desperately
trying to break into the local phone system market and not having all that
much success.  So instead companies like AT&T started buying out
Cable companies at huge multiples of annual revenues, only to find that
the wireless market was taking off at the same time and were left with
a shrinking cable market thereby drastically lowering the value of those
Cable Company buyouts, LIKE AT&T as done and loosing value.  As
a result companies LIKE AT&T's stock value starts slipping rapidly
and their Corp. Bond rating was dropped to "Junk" status (Recently
for AT&T) and now are looking to find a new revenue source in the
Internet game to make up at least some those losses....  My my how
the worm turns, eh Mairlyn?

>
>
> Is that a future consistent with the goals of the international Internet community? I doubt that.

  I don't.  And again, see above...  You folks including your CEO Michael,
still can't see the dam forest for the trees yet...

>
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@fuchsia.bijt.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:46 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: ga@DNSO.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] The Real World
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 21:51 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to evolve ICANN and
> > welcome the support of governments [or multilateral organizations/treaty organizations]
> > to private sector leadership.  We urge governments to work to support ICANN; to participate
> > in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities. NOT to compete, and not to seek to
> > take on functions which belong to ICANN.
>
> ICANN manages a cartel of registries and registrars. The market cannot
> decide therefore. Voting with $$ is impossible. Well, not absolutely
> impossible. An alternative root is possible, naturally. But it is very
> hard, and hardly what the industry would like.
>
> The industry should therefore recognize that it cannot ignore its
> customers, despite the fact that it has a monopoly.
>
> On a more principal level: The Internet is different from other networks,
> like cable television. It is not merely about suppliers and consumers. It
> is also that, but at the same time it functions like the telephone
> network, where the users make the content, not companies. Email is the
> killer application. Despite all spam mainly a user to user tool.
>
> So put users into your picture. Give them votes like you have votes. Like
> it was meant to be, half of the votes on the Board of ICANN.
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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