[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: no matter may pass out of the DNSO without the expli cit approval of the ga
Marilyn and all,
I cannot speak for Roberto or Karl here, whom it seems that this public
post was more specifically intended for. But as you did post this publicly
to the Assembly Members, a proper and reasonable thing to do, I feel
as spokesman for some 98k stakeholders that I have a both and interest
and an obligation to comment.
ICANN has several more responsibilities outlined in the White paper
of equal or possibly even more importance. Those of providing competition
in the DNS area and stability. And to do so in such a matter where ALL
stakeholders can participate as "Interested Parties" without exception.
As to your comments on ICANN's responsibilities that you did mention
in your response here to more specifically Roberto and Karl, names,
numbers and protocols. ICANN has not addressed these in a meaningful
or responsible fashion as some of the latest court filings have obviously
shown with certain Domain Names. It has not done it's even a basic
job of protecting privacy with respect the Registration of Domain names
and the implementation of IPv6. ICANN has not done a proper job in the
broadening of additional known privately developed protocols such as
IPv8, MLPI, and advanced versions of BIND for example, amongst
many others. Instead it is spent a considerable sum in attempting to
block participation of "Interested Parties" in actively participating
in the privatization of these areas of responsibility.
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> I don't agree with nor support this recommendation.
> But I have a broader question for your contemplation. ICANN is responsible
> for the technical management of three things -- not one, but three: names,
> numbers, and protocols. I think this suggests that GA would be limiting
> it's comments/suggestions to the Names Council's work--I'm only seeking
> clarification of your comment, not commenting on it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 8:20 PM
> To: karl@CaveBear.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: no matter may pass out of the DNSO without the
> explicit approval of the ga
> >The basic idea is for the GA to make a formal petition to the ICANN
> >to amend the bylaws or articles to give the GA a particular power. And
> >that power be that the GA would have to approve any matter that flows
> >the DNSO to the ICANN board.
> >This would place the GA on an equal footing with the NC in terms of
> >creating domain name policies.
> I agree on the need of redefining the role of the GA in order to raise
> its importance in the process, but I just do not see in the current
> situation how ICANN could take into consideration this kind of petition.
> If we were working, and producing useful DNS-related contributions, we
> could reasonably ask to count more, but if the debate is continuing on
> these topics and with this climate, ICANN is more likely to be tempted
> to scrap the GA altogether than give it more power.
> In summary, your idea is good, but there's some prior work to be done in
> order to make the GA useful, before making it important.
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208