Re: [ga] Motion # 1

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

Gary and all assembly members,

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 11:19 PM 10/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> >Instead of focusing on such boring things as deleted
> >domain name handling
>
> That has been an issue that ICANN has been aware of for
> many months. There was near consensus prior to Accra that
> a uniform 30 day grace period was a Very Good Thing (I was
> one of those not part of that consensus, I'd prefer more
> than 30 days; but whatever, rough consensus works for me).

  But the ICANN BOD claimed that there was NO consensus
on this issue.  Hence the problem with Rough consensus.
Measured consensus is the only way of truly knowing if
there is any consensus...  Hence again, why a vote
on Jamie's Rebid motion is needed bu the GA members.

>
>
> So what has the ICANN braintrust done with that in those
> many months? Zilch. Zero. In a word, nothing. But one is
> supposed to focus and continue pouring time and effort
> down that black hole? Even I'm not that stupid.

  The ICANN BoD and staff seems to be of the belief that
if you talk about and issue long enough stakeholders will
loose interest and than the ICANN BOD or staff can
just give our an Policy Edict to address the issue...

>
>
> >   (and domain hoarding),
>
> Well that one goes back much more than a year. Again there
> is near universal consensus that it is a Very Bad Thing.

  Indeed true..

>
> And ICANN has done, er, um, approximately nothing. And as
> near as anyone can tell they will continue to do, er, um,
> approximately nothing. But I should spend more time beating
> my head against that wall? I haven't got that much more
> stupid since my last paragraph.

  Not only has ICANN done nothing but in fact with the .BIZ
and .INFO debacle or using a lottery based registration and
preregistration as reported by myself, Richard Henderson
and others, they have exacerbated or increased this problem.
This along with not enforcing their own Registry and Registrar
contracts with regards to this and other problem, the ICANN
BoD and staff are aiding and abetting this problem from that
lack of enforcement...

>
>
> >  the WLS proposal,
>
> The proposal that received near universal consensual
> opposition (other that from Veri$ign sockpuppets)?
> So it's dead right? No, it's now winding its way
> through ICANN's byzantine maze and will presently
> reappear in new and improved form. It will still
> receive near universal opposition, but it will carry
> the patina of having been through a 'process' so will
> be allowed to proceed. But I should work hard to be
> part of that patina? Sorry, still not that stupid.

  ALso quite right here as well.  Your on a roll!
And this issue as well has been hashed out on this
forum with two polls taken that clearly show that
WLS is not needed, wanted and would cause
more problem than it is proposed to solve...

>
>
> >whois bulk access?
>
> Another non-starter amongst just about everyone for
> well more than a year. So is it dead and gone? Nope.
> It's getting worse. So again, if I expend time and
> energy on this it will magically reverse direction,
> right? Sigh. I'm done repeating myself.

  ANd again correct.  This issue as well was discussed
on this and two other special forums not to mention on
the NCC forum.  It is clear that privacy of an individual
personal and private information is not needed in a
whois listing on a Domain name.

>
>
> >Quite frankly, if such topics are too uninteresting
> >even for the part of the public which claims to follow
> >ICANN issues, there is no reason at all for that public
> >to participate in ICANN policy-making. I still refuse to
> >believe that.
>
> They aren't too uninteresting for the likes of me, a member
> of the public who claims to follow ICANN issues. The problem
> is that, as your own examples show, there is no place at all
> for the public to participate in ICANN policy-making. Assuming
> that there was, it would be studiously ignored. I still refuse
> to believe that anyone (credible) can argue otherwise. -g

  Quite right here as well...

>
>
>

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