[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair
Javier Sola wrote:
+Wrong. I was in Singapore. Check your notes.
True, you were in Singapore. It just seems like you weren't. May I quote
from the first "informal" Names Council minutes from Berlin:
*Rob Hall - What is the General Assembly? We want as many people as
*Theresa Swinehart - It should be online. The once-a-year General Assembly
requirement *refers only to a face-to-face meeting.
*Robert Hall - The work of the DNSO is done in the General Assembly
*Javier Sola - No, the Names Council does the work
*Antony Van Couvering - The Singapore meeting came up with a set of
principles that reflects *a compromise between the DNSO group and the Paris
Draft group - and the compromise is that *the General Assembly does the work
through research groups and the Names Council manages *and facilitates
*Jon Englund - [Goes over history of the bylaws]
I think this pretty well shows where your head is at. NC RULES OK! What is
missing from these minutes is your comment that you "didn't know anything
about Singapore" - which I remember well, and which is why I thought you
+You keep talking about agreements that are not in the bylaws. The reason
+why they are not in the bylaws is because they were not agreements:
+Singapore was a step forward and Paris was a manouver to try to delay the
+process. The final agreements are in the ICANN bylaws, anything else you
+call an agreement is just in your mind.
In the United States, the history of laws is important, especially with
regard to intent. How else would you understand ambiguous passages? That's
why I keep talking about the Singapore agreements. As you recall, we agreed
on some principles, and these principles were translated into bylaws by Joe
Sims and the ICANN staff.
I don't think I'm the only person to recognize the importance of the
Singapore principles. It may be "just in my mind", but there's also a link
to them on the DNSO web page: http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html. You
can get them taken down, of course, but for the moment they still are there.
+>You say I didn't comment on WG-A. That is false. I made
+>on the WG-A, they were communicated by way of the ccTLD Names Council
+>members. Other comments from ccTLD members were also channeled
+>same method. The desire was to speak as a consituency, with one (strong)
+>voice. (I note, however, that the Names Council did not see fit
+>the responses of the constituencies, which they solicited.)
+Where did you send them to? If you had sent them to the official address,
+published in the website and pretty well known, they would be published.
I sent them to Fay Howard, one of our Names Council members. She told us
that this would be the preferred method of delivering comments, as requested
by the Names Council. So much for trying to streamline comments from the
constituency for the ease of Names Council members. I will post all the
comments I made wrt WG-A to this list for your edification.
+You are not interested in changes of the status quo (call it RFC 1951). You
+believe that RFC 1951 will defend rogue ccTLD registries from falling under
+the ruling of the country for which the ccTLD was supposed to be ment.
You seem to know not only what I am thinking but what Jon Postel/Randy
Bush/John Klensin were thinking as well when they put together RFC 1591.
But hang on! You can actually ask Randy about this, if he can stomach it.
Or I can just quote from RFC 1591 - "IANA is not in the business of deciding
what is and what is not a country." Javier, you are talking through your
hat, you have no idea what was "supposed to be meant."
I wonder also what "rogue ccTLD registries" you are talking about. Would
you care to be more specific?
+I believe that it clearly doesn't now, and so far there is no need for
+change, but it is just a question of interpretation.
+The best way of having no changes is having a DNSO that is not operational.
+The best way of having a DNSO that is not operational is to make sure that
+is managment (Names Council) has no power whatsoever, even if it represents
+the contituecies of the DNSO.
The IATLD has repeatedly said - in fact, in just about every public
statement we have ever made - that governments have an important (though not
unilateral) role in redelegation questions, and also that RFC 1591 should be
the basis for change. I don't think this is difficult to understand. We
have never said don't change, we have simply said, let's start from an
agreed upon framework. Since every TLD in the world operates under the
authority of RFC 1591, it seemed like a good place to start. We have
explicitly recognized the need to change parts of 1591, and we have
communicated this to the ICANN board, to other ccTLD groups, and to anyone
who will listen. That is why we applauded the issuance by ICANN of IPC-1 in
a long letter to the ICANN Board. (That just goes to show what a bunch of
obstructionists we are.) What we don't want is a bunch of know-nothings
writing idiotic rules from scratch. Imagine that.
Your attacks are scurrilous and without foundation.