Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Why must they then negotiate?

They already get services directly from the RZSs.

It is irrelevant what ICANN does or if they have a contract with the DoC or
usgov.

Eric

DPF wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:46:53 EST, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> >Thanks to Bret Fausett for posting the RIPE NCC's response to the ICANN
> >reform proposal document:
> >http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/icann-reform.html
> >
> >RIPE's concluding remarks:  "Seeing that you are proposing fundamental
> >changes to ICANN and the principles behind the ICANN - RIR MoU, signed in
> >1999, we believe that in the interest of our members, we have to thoroughly
> >re-assess our relationship with ICANN."
>
> Good on them.
>
> I am now rapidly approaching the opinion that the ccTLDs should carry
> on forming their own peer association and then negotiate directly with
> the US Department of Commerce to take over ICANN's role with regards
> to any ISO3166-1 entries in the root.
>
> 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

--
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