RE: [discuss] Re: WG instantiation procedures.

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Which Eva Frolich and I both spoke against in the public session.

You don't seem to understand that the NC itself must also gain
acceptance or it is powerless, as does the ICANN. Attendance and
participation in these meetings must not be mistaken for acceptance. It
is merely an attempt to try and find a means that works. If some-process
is not established soon, the ICANN willl, itself loose credibility. The
fact that this has already occurred, in some circles, is beyond doubt. I
believe that I was one of, maybe two, ORSC affiliates present at the
meeting, that should say something, I'm not sure what, but it says
something. There were no SuperRoot Consortium members present.
Alternative routes are being worked on, the ORSC root system is still
operational and is being updated, so is the GRS system.

The ICANN, at present, is in a very precarious position and they have
placed themselves there. Most of us want this to work. However, trading
security for leg-irons is not an option. Potentially Supra-legal
activity, as outlined in the WIPO report, will not be tolerated,
especially if we get taken there by a railroad job. At that point, it
will simply be ignored and ICANN will become irrelevant. After all,
ICANN is simply a private California non-profit corp. It is NOT a
regulatory body and it does NOT control taxation powers. ICANN has
absolutely no jurisdiction except over itself. Importantly, it does not
have USG Federal authority. You can have all the rubber-stamp groups
that you want, but ICANN, and the DNSO, must have buy-in from the rest
of us in order to function. The FUD of some governmental sanction
(Twoomey, ICANN/GAC, Berlin) is pure bluster, it won't happen. It can't
happen.

The Internet is cooperative, cooperation cannnot be coerced, regardless
of what Javier SOLA might think, or what votes he thinks he controls, in
the NC. The consensus CAN go against the NC and the ICANN itself.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 3:35 AM
> To: rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Cc: discuss@dnso.org
> Subject: [discuss] Re: WG instantiation procedures.
>
>
> > Javier's failure to gracefully accept the amendment,
> proposed by Bill,
> > pretty much nailed it for me.
>
> my poor memory is that the nc was of a similar mind, i.e. the
> ammendment
> failed to carry.  so what you characterize as javier's lack
> of grace was
> in fact the will of the nc.
>
> randy
>