Re: [ga] various comments

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

Joe and all assembly members,

Joe Sims wrote:

> Let me try to collectively respond to the various posts dealing with my
> previous posts.

  You did try, but from what I can read, you seemed to have failed
to do so with any tiny relationship with accuracy and very little
relevancy.
( More of my comments/observations below Joe's Missives )

>
>
> 1.  ICANN is a process, not a thing.

  ICANN is a calif. non-profit corp.  That makes it a "Thing" of sorts...
Indeed ICANN is involved in many processes.

> 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.

  Only the DNS?  Humm Joe this doesn't seem to fit well with the ICANN
Bylaws, which if I recall you helped draft?  This statement also seems to
be a bit far afield of ICANN's own Org Chart as well...  See:
http://www.icann.org/general/icann-org-chart_frame.htm - for org chart
and http://www.icann.org/general/support-orgs.htm - For supporting
organizations as part of ICANN, and than the Pieasta resistance,
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm and
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI

  So Joe, it seems that you are mistaken or having one of those
"Senior Moments"...


>  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.

  Influence is for sale Joe.  you know that, I know that, most of the
GA members know that, so whom do you really think you are kidding?
Well this old west Texas boy ain't fooled...

>
>
> 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.

  Again just the DNS?  Hummm Joe, you seem to be on a downward
memory slope here.  See above...

>  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.

  Well the first sentence of as you state it clearly indicates by your
actually responding to this thread at all seems to say that perhaps
you are concerned regarding some, if not many, of the decisions
that the ICANN BOD and Staff have made in the name of the
stakeholders/users...  If I were in your shoes, and thankfully
right now I am not, I would be concerned too.  Perhaps you
shorts are riding a little high Joe???

>
>
> 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.

  When is ICANN going to start doing this I wonder???

> 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.

  The DNS barely performs effectively as a number of recent events
that have been reported sense 1998 have been a testimony to.  The
DNS certainly does not run efficiently as it once did and still can,
or as securely as it should. THAT is s testament to the ineffective
management of ICANN.  And also why the USG is excellerating
"Govnet" so as not to be caught with the short down around their
ankles for the rest of the world to take pot shots at their collective
backsides...

>  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;

  Introduced?  Interesting choice of terms or words here Joe.  I would
doubt that many that participated at the time that the UDRP was
"Introduced".  Rather it would be much more appropriate to say
that the UDRP was "Imposed"...  I would also hardly say that sense
MdR2000 when the "Lottery" to determine new TLD's was considered
to be "Introduced", but rather "Finagled" seems to be more of an
accurate term to describe that maniacal episode and event...
I would hardly say, as I am sure many others at the time did not
say that SRS was "introduced" but again rather would say SRS
was "Imposed", and SRS remains one cause for a number of
DNS related problems that have become serious concerns and
issues for Registrants, Registrars and yes, especially Registries...

> 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.

  I agree that a more workman like way by which forums for discussion
and debate with action items determined in those forums are necessary,
and would be a welcome change to those that ICANN has thus far
produced or otherwise provided for thus far.  Some attempts in the
DNSO GA in the form of Working Groups ( WG's ) have been done
successfully but are frequently thwarted by the NC, the ICANN Staff,
or one or more constituencies for various reasons that seem to
escape reality and have yet to justify lack of openness and
transparency as required in the White Paper and the MoU...

>
>
> 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.

  Good point here Joe.  However without the before knowledge of the
public interest as a whole, how can someone or anyone act in their
behalf properly and accountably?  As we have recently seen in the
news of late Enron, Aurthor Anderson, and Worldcom seem to
have had this very same problem.  And that problem came from
the very people at the top that are supposed to ensure that they
ARE acting in the "Public Interest as a Whole".   And so it seems
that ICANN is perhaps in this same predicament, and has been for
some time now...

>
> 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.

  Oh I see, now you are saying that the DNS is just the #1 goal of
everything ICANN does...  Hummmm?  Well Joe, you seem to
flip back and forth on what ICANN does quite a bit...  Why is that
Joe?  Another "Senior Moment" perhaps???

>
> 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.

  Indeed agreed here Joe...

>  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.

  Agree here as well Joe...  Maybe you are on a role and have recovered
from your "Senior Moment's"????

>  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,

  I hope you really mean stakeholder community here Joe.  ????

> 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.

  Most yes.  But the devil is in the details Joe, as a lawyer you know this,
right?  So "Most" in this context, as we down here in Texas put it,
"Ain't gett'en it ole son"...

>
>
> 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.
> ==========
>
>

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