Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

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

Dan and all assembly members,

  Dan, you hit again on a very good point IMHO.  Well done!
Indeed either there are some hidden meanings in this article,
and the Letter as well, or Lynn in particular did not
articulate himself very well...

  What I liked was the actual title of the article:
"Internet Registry Giants Want ICANN Heeled"  >;)
Makes ICANN sound like a rabid dog...

Dan Steinberg wrote:

> ummmmmmm,
> Does this alll have to be about hidden meanings?
>
> is it not possible to agree that ICANN needs to be reined in without
> worrying about the motivation of the people saying so?
>
> I mean...I do not represent a registrar or registry or any other R-word.
> Yet I most definitely opposed WLS.  by this logic I should be agreeing
> with Stuart Lynnn and disagreeing with Verisign.  Dont I have any choice
> in the matter?
> I think I do.  As a matter of public record...I have agreed with Karl
> Auerbach just about every time he spoke about ICANN.
> I think ICANN has gone way beyond what their original mandate is. And I
> think Stuart Lynn is tryign to take it even further, at the same time
> removing any last vestiges of checks/balances and accountability that we
> fought so hard to get included in the original contract.
>
> William X Walsh wrote:
> >
> > Thursday, August 01, 2002, 4:41:06 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, at 18:06 [=GMT-0400], DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31870-2002Aug1.html
> >
> > > Marvelous quote, Lynn dismissing the joint protest of Verisign and the
> > > European ccTLDs registries against the blueprint:
> >
> > > *"A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common
> > > *interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they
> > > *don't want to be accountable to anybody."
> >
> > > Is by definition the registry of registries (to wit ICANN) exempt
> > > from this interest in preserving monopolies? If so, why?
> >
> > Oh please, Marc.  I know you are an alt.root advocate, but you are one
> > of the most reasonable ones, surely you can recognize that Lynn was
> > spot on right in this article, and that the reason for this "protest"
> > is clearly because the registries want to attack ICANN for doing the
> > right thing with regard to the WLS.
> >
> > I know you hate ICANN, and I understand why, but come on, I know you
> > can be reasonable, and you have to see that here.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
> > --
> > Save Internet Radio!
> > CARP will kill Webcasting!
> > http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin            phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec         fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> --
> 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