Re: [ga] The Real World

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

James - you are dead on. ICANN needs to divest itself from the Standards
Orgs and lose the entire PSO hierarchy. No other solution is reasonable or
workable in my book.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>; "ga@DNSO.org" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World


> Marilyn, what about the theory that standard setting is (a) a potentially
> competitive field, and ICANN would benefit from a little more competition,
> and (b) it is unusual for a standards organization to openly declare that
it
> is against being bound by consensus, and (c), and it is really unusual for
a
> body that wants to *govern* to openly declare it should have a self
> selecting board?   How do you explain these things to your friends?
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
> To: "William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>; "ga@DNSO.org" <ga@dnso.org>;
> "Names council (E-mail)" <council@dnso.org>; "Business Constituency
> Secretariat (E-mail)" <secretariat@bizconst.org>; "Alejandro Pisanty
> (E-mail)" <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:51 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] The Real World
>
>
> Dear all
>
>
> As is well known, I am one of the representatives of the business
> constituency,  I also work
> within a company who is a major stakeholder in the Internet, wearing the
hat
> of an ISP,
> a business user, a web hoster, a famous ;' and well known brand holder,
and
> acting as an
> intermediary for several thousand businesses who have build web sites on
the
> Internet.
>
> This post is as an individual:  BUT, I am the rapporteur in the BC on this
> issue and I believe that
> business users are fully committed to the Evolution and Reform Process
which
> ICANN announced.
>
> Did we agree with all the initial solutions proposed?    No.
> Did we agree with the list of issues to be addressed.Yes, largely.
> Are we willing and committed to evolution?  YES.
> Are we committed to ICANN's success? YES.
>
> It is easy to throw stones. Better, harder, and more important to work to
be
> part of a
> process to ensure private sector  leadership in the issues and
> responsibilities ICANN manages.
>
> I believe that you could say that the business users have taken sides as
> well. That is the side of
> evolving, improving and stabilizing ICANN.
>
> Recently,  a multi lateral organization has raised its hand and said
> something like: what about me?
> I can do it better.Or cheaper. Or more like governments like it...  I have
> seen many postings from
> industry sectors who object to any efforts by governments or multi lateral
> organizations to encroach
> into the Internet via attempting to assume some of ICANN's functions.
>
> 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.
>
> On Evolution and Reform:
>
> Will this be easy? No
> Will it continue to be a bit noisy? Yes.
> It is perfect? No....
> Will everyone be satisfied?Not likely.
> Is it worth it? Yes
>
> Regards,
>
> Marilyn Cade
> Posting as an individual business constituency member and elected
> representative, on my own personal views
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 8:15 PM
> To: ga@DNSO.org
> Subject: [ga] The Real World
>
>
> The following should be of more than passing interest:
>
> "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) was set up in 1998 to oversee several important
> functions that keep the Internet running. Ever since, it has been
>  criticized for lack of accountability and openness.  In February,
>  its current President, M Stuart Lynn, issued a manifesto
> claiming that ICANN was seriously broken and proposing a
> complete reform.  Although many concede that ICANN has
> failed, few agree with Lynn's specific proposals, which
> essentially call for a rebuilt organization with three to five
> times the budget, more than 50 percent additional staff
> and greater power.  Critics argue that this plan will create
> a single point of failure, the very thing the Internet's design
> sought to avoid.
>
> The upshot has been to reopen the intense debates that
> preceded ICANN's formation. Even former pacifists,
> including Peter G. Neumann, who moderates the online
> bulletin board RISKS Forum, and Lauren Weinstein of
> People for Internet Responsibility, are taking sides.  They
> say that an immediate handover to a less political, more
> strictly technical organization, such as the Internet
> Architecture Board, is necessary to avoid a meltdown."
>
> "Need to Know: ICANN CAN'T," Scientific American,
> June 2002, p. 21.
>
> Bill Lovell
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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