Re: [ga] various comments

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

Christian and all assembly members,

  Yes, I found that part rather interesting too Christian!
I can only gander a guess as to a REAL answer.
That being that ccTLD's are in the Root...
But I would not find that to be an adequate
answer/excuse...  However don't expect a
straight answer, if any from Joe on this one.
After all he is a lawyer...

Christian.Ahlert@sowi.uni-giessen.de wrote:

> Dear Joe:
>
> Interesting use of language: Why should ICANN "oversee" the
> cctld's?
>
> Best
> Ch
>
> Subject:                [ga] various comments
> To:                     ga@dnso.org
> From:                   "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
> Date sent:              Thu, 23 May 2002 08:20:04 -0400
>
> Let me try to collectively respond to the various posts dealing with my
> previous posts.
>
> 1.  ICANN is a process, not a thing.  Its only purpose in life is to serve
> as a facilitating mechanism for issues related to the DNS for which there
> is no other available or preferable forum.  I understand that there are
> people out there who don't like that idea, and wish it were not so, but
> there are  also people out there that do like the concept, and so far, the
> latter have been more influential than the former.
>
> 2.  ICANN's mission, simply put, is to provide a forum for discussion,
> consensus building where possible, and decision-making on matters which are
> either necessary or highly useful to the continued effective operation of
> the DNS.  I understand that reasonable people can and do differ about the
> parameters of that mission, and so it continues to be debated. Some people
> think there is a broad consensus on this point, and others do not; in the
> meantime, decisions will be made by those with the ability to make them,
> exercising their best judgment as to the course of conduct that most
> conforms with the first sentence of this paragraph.
>
> 3.  In response to Jefsey, the main accomplishment of ICANN  will always be
> the continued stable operation of the DNS, for the benefit of all those
> that rely on it.  If ICANN can provide the forum for discussion and debate,
> and make decisions as felt necessary, with the result that (despite all the
> forces to the contrary) the DNS continues to perform effectively, that will
> validate its existence.  To date, this has been done while a competitive
> registrar system and a SRS has been introduced; while seven new generic
> TLDs have been introduced; while a global dispute resolution system has
> been introduced where none existed before; and while there has been a
> continuing forum (no matter how imperfect some feel it has accepted or
> reflected their views) for debate and discussion about not only these
> issues, but internationalized TLDs, the appropriate system of oversight for
> ccTLDs, the proper role of the RIRs and root server operators in the global
> coordination of the DNS and addressing system, and the appropriate
> governance mechanisms for such a unique entity as ICANN.  In the future,
> there will be more significant issues that raise their own policy problems
> -- perhaps a larger number of new TLDs, IPv6, DNSsec, IDN deployment, etc.
> So the challenge for ICANN now is to reform and regularize its structure
> and processes so it can effectively serve as the policy development body it
> is intended to be, but in a more effective and workmanlike way than has
> characterized its first 3+ years.
>
> 4.  On the .org example, this is a really good illustration of the
> different roles of the policy development bodies of ICANN and the Board.
> The former are made up of representatives of specific private interests;
> the latter is made up of people who are charged (and in joining the Board
> agree to act accordingly) with representing the public interest as a whole.
> There was lots of work put into this issue by volunteers, but in trying to
> ensure that the appropriate poitical compromises were made between the
> various interests represented, the working group lost sight of the #1 goal
> of everything ICANN does -- the continued stable operation of the DNS.
> There are 3 million registrants in .org, and their continued well-being --
> their right to be certain that their registrations will continue to
> effectively function under a new registry operator -- is and must be the
> principal criteria of any redelegation.  Once that goal is ensured, then we
> can think about other things, although it is hard for me to imagine that it
> would ever be appropriate to charge registrants significantly more than
> cost for the purpose of creating a fund to subsidize someone's idea of a
> good cause.  What the Board said in Accra is:  "Continued stable operation
> of .org is the primary decisional criteria for selecting a new registry
> operator."  In doing so, the Board (whose responsibility to to act in the
> best interests of the entire ICANN community, including in particular those
> registrants that do not otherwise participate in ICANN but nevertheless are
> affected by its actions) simply applied the ICANN mission parameters to
> this particular issue.  You will notice that the RFP documents otherwise
> reflect much of the recommended approach and language.
>
> 5.  Finally, some have written that my participation on the list at this
> time is because ICANN is "panicked."  Of course, if we don't participate,
> we are accused of not engaging.  Hard to win on this point, it appears.  In
> any event, this will be my last post for a while, since the next 10 days or
> so will be busy.  Look for some kind of posting of reform recommendations,
> as the Board said in Accra would occur, on or about June 1.
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
>
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
> not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
>
> --
> 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