[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Clarification: "Ad Hoc Group"
My impression (gathered via osmosis in Santiago) was that this ad hoc group
would be looking at alternatives to the current IP addressing scheme, in
particular, addressing schemes of interest to European mobile phone
providers, which would not be managed by the Regional Registries.
I also heard ICANN was planning to create a similar ad hoc group in the
DNSO space, to look at alternatives to TLDs (RealNames, etc.)
Of course, this could all be rumor, or simple misinterpretation on my part
-- Bill Semich
*former* DNSO Preliminary Names Council member
At 02:03 PM 8/31/99 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
>John Klensin wrote:
>>It is a set of ASO-related issue relative to long-term future
>>evolution of the address space and allocation policies.
>Why, then, isn't this issue turned over to the ASO for discussion and
>recommendations to the ICANN board?
>An an ad hoc committee created by two unelected, unaccountable board
>members circumvents the process established in the ICANN bylaws (which,
>incidentally, can be changed on the fly by the ICANN board.)
>The answer, of course, is Esther's Machiavellian approach, stated in
>Santiago, which is that outcomes matter more than process:
> "With all due respect," she told the audience, "we are less
>interested in complaints about process" and more interested in "doing real
> work and moving forward."
>Where in ICANN's labyrinthian scheme does anyone get to raise the question?
>Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook
>Co-author ____ http://www.domainhandbook.com
>========================== ^..^ )6 =============================
>ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010
>email@example.com W W Tiburon, CA
> DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age