[ga-full] Re: [ga] Older Registrations

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Craig is providing in his analysis below the best explanation on why 
this debate will be endless, i.e. because there is some truth and some 
inexactitude in both statements made so far.

IMHO, USG participated initially in the IAHC with the intention of 
providing USG POV in the matter (and therefore with somebody in an 
"official" capacity - what's the point otherwise in having somebody at 
that high level instead of an obscure clerk?), but as always happens in 
political situations, USG never made an open statement that could engage
 it in the decisions of the IAHC.

This turned out handy when USG changed attitude (whether this was 
because of NSi's lobbying, or whether this was because of genuine 
concerns about IAHC not reaching consensus is beyond this debate - and 
please do not start this other one, because it will be endless as well).

USG therefore stepped out, starting a new process, with the Green Paper,
 and from there we went, little by little, to these days.

So it turns out that there will not be any "formal" proofs of the 
initial attitude of USG, because a formal statement of support of the 
IAHC has never been issued, in spite of the participation at the highest
 level, and there will not be any "formal" proofs of the "disawowement" 
of USG of the IAHC, because the "political" formulation for doing this 
is just that IAHC did not reach consensus of the community.

But feel free to insist to mutually ask for proofs, just be aware that 
few people are still listening. Why? Beacuse whatever the situation in 
the past, now the ball is clearly in ICANN's court, and how to influence
 ICANN's opinion on the subject is more important than go back to 
remember how nice (or bad) the good ol' times were.

Regards
Roberto
 


>Folks,
>
>Here's a useful link that touches on the sequence of events leading to 
George
>Strawn's invitation to serve on the IAHC.
>
>http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_10_96_minutes.html
>
>Note the line, "NSF/FNC should contact ISOC concerning US government
>representation on the Internet Society's International Ad Hoc Advisory
>Committee."
>
>Clearly they did, and Don Heath responded by appointing Stawn. The NSF/
FNC's
>motivation (and the activity) may have been primarily monitory, but the
 words in
>the document say representation. Point to Dave Crocker.
>
>To be fair to Chris Ambler and Simon Higgs, it's not altogther clear 
whether, in
>the IAHC meetings, Strawn represented himself as holding the formal 
office of a
>US agent, or whether he explicitly disavowed that role. Chris says he 
did, but I
>can't find any evidence of that. I'm open to pointers. ("Check the 
archives"
>doesn't cut it.)
>
>Also, Joe Kelsey's find that the FNC  "continues to encourage open 
discussion on
>domain name registration" is certainly no disclaimer, I agree, but it's
 not a
>ringing endorsement of the IAHC either. 
>
>I'd like to know what Mr. Strawn says now with regard to these issues. 
What did
>he report back to the FNC? Perhaps this time around he will respond to 
my
>request for an interview. I last tried for one in early June 1998. 
Perhaps the
>email address I'm using for him (gstrawn@nsf.gov) is no good. If anyone
 has a
>suggestion (or his phone#) please let me know.
>
>Craig Simon
>--
>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
>
>
>
>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html