Re: [ga] your comments

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

Joe and all assembly members,

Joe Sims wrote:

> Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>
>
>  the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the
>  ICANN project since its inception
>
>
> It is certainly true that some ccTLDs have been very supportive, and it is
> also true that many ccTLDs will say privately that they do not support the
> more radical statements of their "leaders," but as far as I can tell, your
> position has been that the cc's that you speak for will come into ICANN
> only if ICANN agrees that they get to have a veto over any ICANN policies
> that they don't care to follow.

  I cannot see a good reason that any ccTLD registry that have been pretty
much independent for some many years now, needs to always adhere to
any and all policies that ICANN may wish to dictate or otherwise
impose, Joe!  Why should they or their registrants acquiesce to such
a broad sweeping requirement.  And in fact in some instances, doing
so would be in violation of that ccTLD's host countries laws..

>  We might be able to agree that all parties
> could have perfomed better over the last years, and by that I mean all
> parties -- the GAC, cc administrators, ICANN staff and Board, and
> individual national governments.

  Agreed that ALL parties could and should have performed better.
However you left out Individual Domain Name holders and
Stakeholders/users as those parties, Joe.  I hope that was just
a oversight on you part...  ???

>  But there is still a core issue:  do the
> operators of these particular TLD registries have any obligation to the
> global Internet community, in addition to their obvious responsibilities to
> their local Internet community?  If they do, ICANN is the vehicle for
> establishing policies that reflect that obligation to the global community.

  The answer is of course yes to your question Joe.  But the more
important question is or remains: is the responsibility to the local
community and Registrants more important than to the global
community?  IOHO, the answer to this question is also yes...

>
> This has been the position of the staff, and the Board, and the GAC, from
> the beginning, and until this principle is accepted, it seems unlikely that
> we will make much progress.

  I agree here as well as do I believe most of our members.  But you still
leave out the second and maybe more important question which I posed,
that qualifies to an extent your question Joe.  See just above...

> From your posting and its continuing criticism
> of the GAC principles, I don't see much sign of progress.  Nevertheless, I
> look forward to your upcoming meeting, and hope that it will help bring
> closure to what has to date been an unproductive debate.

  Well I don't know about unproductive.  But certainly, the entrenched
positions of both sides of this debate are still firmly entrenched.

>
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
>
> ==========
>

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