<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
Dear Asaad,
proposing a response to a 4 years old question, when half the problem has
been identified by Lynn as actually the wording of the question, calls
for the question to be reworded. There is today no response to Lynn by
the BoD.
There is absolutely no interest in providing any response until the final
question has not been worded. Also, once reworded in today's wording,
there will be a need to check that the ICANN format is appropriate or
not. We are not interested, IMHO, in the ICANN interests, but in having
the job properly done to our own best interests. I only wish that the
ICANN no-members share that target and that our common interests are also
their interest: today I have no element telling this is not the case.
But we all have elements showing us that the situation is confuse: only a
clean sheet restart may permit us to work efficiently. ICANN loyally
tried it with the ALSC. Lynn has acknowledged it was not enough. The only
escalation is the DoC. We need the DoC to speak-up, clearly. Only a rebid
can oblige them to that.
The alternative is simple: the ICANN will carry no more interest. As one
of the best support of the ICANN policy put it in the NCC: the complexity
is not to manage the DNS, but to make believe they are entitled to do it.
The ICANN is like a King living in selling nobility titles. To make a
living it has to be credible enough and get support from it allies. If
the DoC does not endorse it.... The Rebid is also a vote of Trust. There
is a big difference between reconducting an agreement no one is pleased
with, and granting a new agreement.
jfc
On 09:29 03/05/02, Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. said:
I
agree with Marilyn & disagree with the vote as presented to us, all
this is obstruction of our ongoing work.
If anyone is sincere
enough, then first we should have a series of discussions and second the
recommended ballot should have first included couple well thought
alternatives, well thought implementation plan, management feasibility
study, planned funding plan, action items, solutions, management
structure & background qualification and so forth in order to justify
why that any new body will be better than ICANN, more qualified or can be
up to the global challenges.
Further, the timeline
posted is not reasonable at all and seems as bad as the vote ballot
itself.
Maybe many of you
don't agree with ICANN policy or strategy, maybe we have grievances, some
of us ccTLD managers have problems with ICANN's decisions, but no one on
the GA so far have even offered a logical ICANN alternative or even
suggested a qualified body to take on the task from ICANN without
disturbing our DNS operations.
It is always very
easy to blame others and start red herrings to obstruct advancements, but
it is very hard to recommend and deliver suitable alternatives.
Best
Regards,
Asaad
Alnajjar
CEO Millennium
Inc.
Executive Director
AINC (Arabic Internet Names
Consortium)
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
- To: John Palmer ;
ga@dnso.org
- Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:24 PM
- Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN
contract
- I disagree with the vote and think this a diversion from doing useful
work. Marilyn Cade
- -----Original Message-----
- From: John Palmer
[mailto:jp@ADNS.NET]
- Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:54 PM
- To: ga@dnso.org
- Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN
contract
- Ok Tom - thats 9 - Whats the magic number?
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: jefsey
- To: ga@dnso.org
- Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:37 PM
- Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN
contract
- I second all this. I suggest that the icannatlarge.com presents this
motion to its members and they register on the GA to participate to such
a vote. May be a good occasion to have the GA list taking overt the ALSC
list to be closed? This a real occasion if everyone shares in it. Like
for Plan B.
- jfc
- On 02:14 03/05/02, Joanna Lane said:
- PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE BELOW.
- Mr. James Love, a member in good standing of the DNSO's General
Assembly, has made a call for action, specifically
stating:
- "I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views
on whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open
competition for the services now provided by ICANN. The rationale for
asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the initial
terms of reference for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes,
which have met extensive opposition in the Internet community. The rebid
would allow the NTIA to consider alternatives to the current ICANN plan
for managing key Internet resources.
- The vote should be taken within 10
days."
- Seconds: John Palmer, Danny Younger.
- Members who have indicated their agreement with taking a
Vote:-
- James Love (Proponent)
- John Palmer (Second)
- Danny Younger (Second)
- Jeanette Hoffman
- Joanna Lane
- Sotiris Sotiropoulos
- Karl Auerbach
- .
- .
Members who have indicated their disagreement with taking a
Vote:-
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date:
19/04/02
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date:
19/04/02
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|