Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all assembly members,

  Dave, I am not so sure that you are correct here in your assessment.
.CO, .US, .NZ, .PH, and .AU are under pressure from their respective
USER'S and stakeholders despite the respective governments support
in a few of these situations.  This provides the ICANN BOD and staff
with the impetus to recommend a change in whom manages those ccTLD's.

  Right now, our reading is that DOC/NTIA doesn't know what it should do,
for several reasons.  Here are a few that I have gotten directly from
DOC Secty:

1.) Lack of independent input from the stakeholder community outside of
the ICANN Process on any issues and most specifically on specific issues.

2.) Lack of a good understanding of how the DNS really works, and
more importantly how it could work ( such a multiple roots/registries in a
shared environment).

3.) Unwillingness and lack of expertise in being able to make reasonable
policy decisions.

DPF wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:44:19 -0700, William X Walsh
> <william@userfriendly.com> wrote:
>
> >Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 4:27:30 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >> 3. What level of Board Representation do you think is appropriate for ccTLDs
> >> 6,5, 4 or less?
> >
> >How arrogant to suggest that the ccTLDs should have anywhere NEAR so
> >many board seats allocated to them.
> >
> >That is just plain ludicrous, even if they were deserving of an SO
> >status, which the most certainly are not.
> >
> >The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
> >on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
> >contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
> >and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
> >freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
> >or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.
>
> William - get real.  ICANN if it tried to do that would split the root
> within weeks.  Most ccTLDs have the full support of their Governments
> (well certainly the ones which account for 90% of ccTLD registrations)
> and if ICANN tries to force the ccTLDs then they will quite simply set
> up their own root server and ICANN would have to point to it.
>
> Also the US Government would get so battered by every other Govt that
> they would probably take Root Server A well away from ICANN.  There is
> not a chance in hell DOC would ever agree to redelegate a ccTLD away
> from a registry supported by the local Govt.
>
> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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