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

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

Leah and all assembly members,

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 8 Sep 2001, at 21:43, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Leah and all assembly members,
> >
> > L Gallegos wrote:
> >
> > > On 9 Sep 2001, at 1:37, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 23:45 08/09/01, William X Walsh said:
> > > > >In my opinion, no registry should ever cease to exist.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN decided otherwise. .biz registry from ARNI should have been
> > > > included in the NeuLevel registry. The current practice of the
> > > > ICANN is in violation of RFC 920/1591. Jefsey
> > > >
> > >
> > > The original .BIZ has not ceased to exist, Jefsey.  It has simply
> > > been duplicated with a collider that will result in dupliate domain
> > > names.  But you are correct, it is in violation of the RFC's if you
> > > wish to use informiational RFC's as law.
> >
> >   RFC's are not law, nor are they standards.  One would be pressed to
> > say that RFC's represent a "Beat Practices" documents either. Yet the
> > ICANN BoD and staff have publicly stated that the IETF and the RFC's
> > of which they are in part responsible for, are to be followed.  It
> > seems obvious than that the ICANN BoD and staff seem ot only wish to
> > follow those RFC's in a very selective manner.  We find that practice
> > to be both inconsistent, as well as disingenuous.
> >
> > >
>
> I guess my point is, Jeff, that if an organization adopts an RFC or
> set of them as policy, then they should follow them. ICANN doesn't
> even follow its own bylaws or MOU.  Even at that, practices over
> the last several years have pretty much made many areas of those
> RFCs obsolete.  They simply change them to suit their desires.
> How many bylaws changes have occurred since July?  Nine?

  Yeah, about Nine is right.  And all without the proper input of a
vote by the stakeholders.  Astounding!

  But I do understand and agree for the most part with your concern.
It is shared by most stakeholders, as you likely know.  It is only that
you seem to consider RFC's, in your previous comments (See above)
as "Laws".  They are no such thing and to refer to RFC's in that
manner is detrimental.  That was part of my comments in response.
It is also beneficial to understand, the RFC's are not standards either,
but rather Requests for comments = RFC.

>
>
> Leah
>
>

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