Re[2]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Sandy,

Monday, July 10, 2000, 9:36:27 AM, you wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

> I won't comment on the rest of the arguments; I don't know enough.
> But this demands comment:

You don't know enough to comment on this one either, let me show you
why.

>> Jon could ask for whatever he wanted, he had no authority.  Bottom
>> line, its been proven by history, end of story.

> Something is getting seriously muddled here. Of course Postel had
> the authority. He ran IANA, and had near-universal respect, earned
> by years of excellent work.

IANA had no authority to add new gTLDs.  None.  Nowhere did it ever
received that authority from the only agency authorized to give it to
them, NSF.  The NSF directive to NSI to not add any new gTLDs even if
IANA requests it shows pretty clearly where the authority was, and
also that IANA and Dr. Postel did not have that authority.  No
document or agreement specifically gives him that power.

He tried to add new gTLDs with the IAHC/gTLD-MoU and failed.  Despite
promises he and others made, those new TLDs did not get added at any
of the many different times he promised they would.


> It is an open question at this point whether ICANN is ever going
> to earn anything like that level of respect.

That may be (I agree) but that doesn't mean that Postel had this
authority.  ICANN doesn't even really have this authority, only the
NTIA does at the moment, but they will most likely follow ICANN's
decision and approve it.

> Methinks they could make a good start with some obvious moves.

>      Create a consituency for individual domain owners.
>        Ideally, it should have more votes or influence than either
>        gov't or industry.

Agreed.

>      Get some new TLDs into service quickly.
>        Ideally, at least a dozen this year.

Won't happen.  Consider us lucky if we get between 1 and 3.

>      Drop the silly notion of DNS enforcing trademark claims.

Never happen.  ICANN is owned by these special interests.

>      Make it abundantly clear that NSI and other contractors
>        who may run some services do not own those services or
>        any of the related data.

Again, never happen.  The data you mean is the database of their
customers, and any business in this world will tell you they own that
data.

> In general, make it clear that ICANN sees its role as running
> a public service for the net.

The whole point of ICANN, Sandy was that it was removing PUBLIC
management, and making it a private industry managed function.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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