Re: [ga] The Real World

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

Marilyn and all assembly members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>    Dear all
>
>
> As is well known, I am one of the representatives of the business
> constituency,  I also work
> within a company who is a major stakeholder in the Internet, wearing
> the hat of an ISP,
> a business user, a web hoster, a famous ;' and well known brand
> holder, and acting as an
> intermediary for several thousand businesses who have build web sites
> on the Internet.

  Well welcome to the club Marilyn.  So are many of our [INEGroup]
members, ISP's, business users, web hosters, a couple are famous
brand/mark holders, and of course I am acting as their intermediary as
spokesman for [INEGroup].  Yet very few or our members are
allowed to join the DNSO in any capacity.  Why is that I wonder?
Well the answers are many and varied.  But the single most important
answer is that we do not support any organization that is not following
it's mandate.  Currently, and so far, ICANN is not following it's
mandate.  It still looks as though it has no intention of doing so
either given Joe Sims recent rantings.
See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01476.html
and: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01475.html -
this one is really a good example.  To which I replied:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg02240.html

>
> This post is as an individual:  BUT, I am the rapporteur in the BC on
> this issue and I believe that
> business users are fully committed to the Evolution and Reform Process
> which ICANN announced.

  Is this the Lynn/Sims/Touton Plan or the Independent At-Large approach

to which the BC is as you say, "Committed" to Marilyn?

>
>
> Did we agree with all the initial solutions proposed?    No.
> Did we agree with the list of issues to be addressed.Yes, largely.
> Are we willing and committed to evolution?  YES.

  No we [INEGroup] are not.  But we [INEGroup] are committed
to a healthy Internet and especially a healthy DNS.  Currently we
have an ailing DNS due to a large extent to ICANN's dropping the
ball or imposed inane policies and processes for determining
policy.  And this is where the BC has been expressly and
exceedingly predacious and influential from it's tiny number
of members and exclusive membership practices, id doing
such huge and far reaching damage to the stakeholders/users
that are not allowed to either participate and/or vote on policy
initiatives that effect them.  This is especially damaging and
to small and medium size businesses world wide...

>
> Are we committed to ICANN's success? YES.

  Agreed yes, but not under the current structure or
management.  Hence the Rebid vote ongoing in the GA
and now being considered, thanks to [INEGroup]
on a global basis...

>
>
> It is easy to throw stones. Better, harder, and more important to work
> to be part of a
> process to ensure private sector  leadership in the issues and
> responsibilities ICANN manages.

  Indeed true here Marilyn.  It is very hard at times to keep the child
like
behavior of the ICANN management in line.

>
>
> I believe that you could say that the business users have taken sides
> as well. That is the side of
> evolving, improving and stabilizing ICANN.

  Or perhaps replacing it's current structure and management team i.e.
the ICANN BoD and staff with the Rebid Motion in the GA and now
being considered by stakeholders all over the globe that wish to
voice and vote their position as stakeholders/users...

>
>
> Recently,  a multi lateral organization has raised its hand and said
> something like: what about me?
> I can do it better.Or cheaper. Or more like governments like it...  I
> have seen many postings from
> industry sectors who object to any efforts by governments or multi
> lateral organizations to encroach
> into the Internet via attempting to assume some of ICANN's functions.

  When ICANN can show it can perform in line with the White Paper
and the MoU, I am sure such "encroachments" will be quieted.  But not
until such has adequately occurred.  That, unfortunately has not
happened
yet.  So the Real World shall continue to be disenchanted, disillusioned

and more and more disgusted with the present ICANN BoD and
staff until it is either replaced whole sale, or brought into the Real
World
kicking and screaming all the way....

>
>
> Industry says, no. Thank you, but no.

  Does it now?  Hummmm?  You must be living in a very different world
than I and most of the rest of the stakeholders/users live in.  Is the
Ivory
tower syndrome effected you perspective Marilyn?  I do hope it has not.
But this comment or statement indicates that perhaps it has...  And that

indeed would be a sad thing for both you at AT&T....  Perhaps though
you are but a reflection of AT&T now two year poor financial and
business
performance....  ?????

> We will continue to evolve ICANN and
> welcome the support of governments [or multilateral
> organizations/treaty organizations]
> to private sector leadership.  We urge governments to work to support
> ICANN; to participate
> in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities. NOT to compete, and not
> to seek to
> take on functions which belong to ICANN.

  The functions to which you speak do not belong to ICANN but to any and

all of the stakeholders Marilyn.  That is what is in the MoU and the
White
Paper.  As Vint Cerf once uttered "The internet belongs to everyone"...
Let us move forward in that good and wholesome spirit.  >:)

>
>
> On Evolution and Reform:
>
> Will this be easy? No

No, only if performance is not excepted as required.
Yes it can be easy if excellence in performance is excepted...

>
> Will it continue to be a bit noisy? Yes.
> It is perfect? No....
> Will everyone be satisfied?Not likely.

A better question would be:  Can the majority of stakeholders/users
be satisfied?  Of course, yes...

>
> Is it worth it? Yes
>
> Regards,
>
> Marilyn Cade
> Posting as an individual business constituency member and elected
> representative, on my own personal views
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 8:15 PM
> To: ga@DNSO.org
> Subject: [ga] The Real World
>
>
> The following should be of more than passing interest:
>
> "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) was set up in 1998 to oversee several important
> functions that keep the Internet running. Ever since, it has been
>  criticized for lack of accountability and openness.  In February,
>  its current President, M Stuart Lynn, issued a manifesto
> claiming that ICANN was seriously broken and proposing a
> complete reform.  Although many concede that ICANN has
> failed, few agree with Lynn's specific proposals, which
> essentially call for a rebuilt organization with three to five
> times the budget, more than 50 percent additional staff
> and greater power.  Critics argue that this plan will create
> a single point of failure, the very thing the Internet's design
> sought to avoid.
>
> The upshot has been to reopen the intense debates that
> preceded ICANN's formation. Even former pacifists,
> including Peter G. Neumann, who moderates the online
> bulletin board RISKS Forum, and Lauren Weinstein of
> People for Internet Responsibility, are taking sides.  They
> say that an immediate handover to a less political, more
> strictly technical organization, such as the Internet
> Architecture Board, is necessary to avoid a meltdown."
>
> "Need to Know: ICANN CAN'T," Scientific American,
> June 2002, p. 21.
>
> Bill Lovell
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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