Re: [ga] Re: WLS Suggestion ... and results

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

Roberto and all assembly members,

  I think you Karl and Danny summed up the gist of this poor ICANN BOD
decision on WLS as well as showed clearly that all of the nonsense that
the ICANN BoD and staff has stated that consensus will be the guide
for their decisions on such issues and policies was just a lot of, pardon
me, BS.

  Now like with to other recent poor ICANN BOD decision on .ORG,
the only reasonable route for appeal would be to DOC/NTIA.

  As spokesman for INEGroup, and our members already determined
on both of these ICANN BoD decisions, I would register officially
that we strongly disagree and find in gross error these two decisions..
I would further recommend that an open forum be set up by DOC/NTIA
so as to garner or otherwise gather a more accurate and Internet
and stakeholder/user position on these two very important and
broad effect policy decisions before it is too late...


Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>
> >
> >http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm
> >
>
> Well, it seems that by staying off the net for a couple of days I missed all
> the fun!
>
> Letīs see, if I can read correctly, it says:
> "The Board approved the above resolution by a 11-2-2 vote, with Mr. Abril i
> Abril and Mr. Auerbach opposed and Dr. Kyong and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn
> abstaining"
>
> The good news is that my favourite Directors voted against (I will answer
> Karlīs message later).
> So, two out of three DNSO Directors voted against the consensus of the DNSO.
> While it is well understood that the Directors act in their own capacity,
> and do not represent their home organization, it seems odd that the NC
> expresses one opinion, and the NC-elected Directors express a different one.
>
> True, following the General Counsel report, the decision was slightly
> different than the initial WLS proposal, but the substance is mostly there.
> And anyway, it is common practice that in a negotiation you shoot high
> initially, and you settle for less.
> So, my analysis is that the big winner is Verisign, that with the excuse of
> giving one more option, it has de-facto wiped out all competition on the
> "second-hand DN" market and further consolidated the concept that .com is
> run by the Registry.
> Slowly slowly, firs with the amendment to the contract that allowed them to
> run Registry and Registrar, then by adding value to Registry part, Verisign
> is recovering from the losses due to increased competition.
> Who is the loser? Many, I believe, as always when a move goes towards
> favouring a monopoly. But who comes out with broken bones from this story,
> methinks, is the DNSO, that has once again the confirmation that its opinion
> is not held in great value.
> The funny thing is that a lot of us have complained about the little role
> that the GA has in the DNSO, where all the power is in the NC. Well, the
> power for doing what? For proposing consensus policy position that are
> disregarded by the Board, including NC-elected Directors? If I were the NC
> Chair, I would propose resignation en-masse of the NC. I know this will not
> happen, and that the NC will swallow also this one without reacting, well,
> maybe a formal message of complaint, but that will be it.
>
> Another final consideration is about how the Board meetings are held.
> I have no idea about the "special telephone meetings", but it has been
> noticed by many, including yours truly, on how the Staff excerces a heavy
> influence on the Board in public meetings. I honestly doubt that they will
> take a lower profile in private meetings. So the question might arise, what
> happens when we have a difference of opinion between the ICANN Staff and the
> Supporting Organization that is relevant for the matter discussed? The Staff
> has plenty of possibilities to attack the SOīs position and defend their
> own, but who defends the SOīs position? Not the SOīs own Directors, because
> they do not represent the SO in the Board, they just represent themselves
> (and this is proven by the fact that they can vote like loose guns).
> This is a serious question. When a matter on which a SO has jurisdiction
> goes to the Board, the SO has to be granted the possibility to participate
> to the debate directly, and not via intermediation of people that do not act
> in the interest of the SO. For instance, the NC Chair has to go and explain
> the reasons of the consensus.
> How can a judge give a fair judgement if plaintiff and defendant are not
> been given equal rights?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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