Re: [ga] The Real World - Seperate the PSO? Motion by the GA?

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

Todd and all assembly members,

  I think this may be a very good idea.  However it has been suggested
on a number of occasions before.  I am afraid that Marilyn, AT&T
would have a tizzy fit it this was done however...  It is also pretty
likely that a split in the IETF/IAB on this idea would occur as well.
However I don't think those problem are show stoppers necessarily
or should be given any more or less consideration than the will
of the stakeholders/users...

  However I do not believe that ICANN should completely
separate itself from standards orgs.  Rather they should either
fit within a set of constituencie(s) or should just remain advisory
bodies to ICANN, but not necessarily part of ICANN's structure.
This would give the standards orgs better latitude, which perhaps
the ICANN BoD and staff don't want, but would keep them
uncaptured or more difficult to capture as well as some
autonomy in standards development...

  In that Protocols (PSO) have a huge impact on DNS, a poll
or a actual motion to vote on this idea would be in order
for the GA and/or other constituencies?  Thoughts on this?

todd glassey wrote:

> James - you are dead on. ICANN needs to divest itself from the Standards
> Orgs and lose the entire PSO hierarchy. No other solution is reasonable or
> workable in my book.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>; "ga@DNSO.org" <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World
>
> > Marilyn, what about the theory that standard setting is (a) a potentially
> > competitive field, and ICANN would benefit from a little more competition,
> > and (b) it is unusual for a standards organization to openly declare that
> it
> > is against being bound by consensus, and (c), and it is really unusual for
> a
> > body that wants to *govern* to openly declare it should have a self
> > selecting board?   How do you explain these things to your friends?
> > Jamie
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
> > To: "William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>; "ga@DNSO.org" <ga@dnso.org>;
> > "Names council (E-mail)" <council@dnso.org>; "Business Constituency
> > Secretariat (E-mail)" <secretariat@bizconst.org>; "Alejandro Pisanty
> > (E-mail)" <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:51 PM
> > Subject: RE: [ga] The Real World
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> > Are we committed to ICANN's success? YES.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. 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.
> >
> > On Evolution and Reform:
> >
> > Will this be easy? No
> > Will it continue to be a bit noisy? Yes.
> > It is perfect? No....
> > Will everyone be satisfied?Not likely.
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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@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 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