Re: [ga] Cerf-Farber Dialogue

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

Danny and all assembly members,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> At a session at the University of Pennsylvania today, Vint Cerf and Prof.
> Farber exchanged thoughts on the origins of the Internet and speculated as to
> its future.  The first question from the audience referenced the recent
> position paper put forth by PFIR http://www.pfir.org/statements/icann  which
> deemed ICANN to be "a failed experiment in Internet policy development,
> implementation, and management."

  Yes I posted this and another reference a few days ago.

>
>
> In reply to the question, Prof. Farber commented that the best plan for ICANN
> would be to "put it into receivership", to which Mr. Cerf replied "I think
> that would be a mistake."   That was the full extent of the discussion on
> this issue.  It appears that both speakers had agreed not to dwell on this
> topic.

  I am sure that Vint was relieved that Dave did not wish to go further
for now.  Given the upcoming House and Senate hearings which I
believe that Dave will likely be testifying to not "dwell on this
topic", as you indicate above is very understandable..

>
>
> In private conversations following the session, I found both Vint and Dave
> Farber to be genuinely open to ongoing discussions.  Neither appeared to have
> adopted an implacable stance.

  Appearances often times are deceiving.  Vint has already made his decision
on the structure of ICANN.

>
>
> In my humble opinion, there still remain opportunities for us to present
> options to the Board which will allow for both enhanced participation and
> representation.  I came away from this session with the belief that the Board
> is not yet "wedded" to the Lynn plan, and is truly amenable to considering
> other formulations (as long as they comprehensively address all the problems
> enumerated by Mr. Lynn).

  No they could not yet "Wedd" themselves to any specific restructuring
plan as Lynn's has been pretty much "Panned" on an international basis,
and more stakeholders are calling for ICANN to be disbanded all together,
as well as being ordered to clean up their act if they wish to keep any
of the existing BoD seats.  Further, as to Lynn's "Other Formulations",
i.e. a At-Large, the restrictions he is indirectly eluding to are those
of the ALSC report...  That too has been soundly rejected by the
stakeholder community.  Hence you wind up back to Lynn/Simm/Touton's
plan or some rendition of it....  Can you say "Cat and Mouse Game"?

>
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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