Re: [ga] ICANN's delay

[Kristy <k@widgital.net>]

Well folks,

I am one of many who wrote to ICANN to tell them that with all the technical
problems they have both encountered and created for themselves, they might
consider pushing back the deadlines.  I actually referenced Chirs in a note to
ICANN because I did not feel it was fair to exclude any one from any part of
the process and Chris had not received his PIN.  I think ICANN is trying to
work with us mostly because we are trying to work with them.  Although, I have
not been pleased by any of this Internet Governance Nonsense:  I thank ICANN
for pushing back the deadlines and enabling more People to participate.

Sorry to upset anyone.

:)

~k



At 07:48 PM 8/3/2000 , Dennis Schaefer wrote:
>Chris and Roberto--
>
>ICANN has succeeded at snowing the lamebrains on the Commerce Committee into
>endless delays.   We won't mention the US Department of Commerce, for
>obvious reasons.
>
>ICANN is an international trade cartel of intellectual property interests.
>DNSO is its principle arm.
>
>Last year Jonathan Cohen (or one of his clones) announced at an NC meeting
>that businesses had a bona fide "interest" in domain names whereas
>individuals had no such interest.
>
>In fact, individuals have a higher interest -- a liberty interest. Now that
>ICANN has created a new world judicial body with the UDRP, hopefully,
>individuals will begin to see that cartels like ICANN are a threat to
>liberty that can only be relieved by throwing out the business-dominated
>machines that control them.
>
>Regards
>
>>Dennis Schaefer
>Marblehead MA
>USA
>
>
>
>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> >This delay is intolerable. The board voted and passed a resolution with
>>  a
>> >timetable. Now the "staff" decides to delay? Who is the "staff" to
>> overturn
>> >a board-ratified resolution?
>> >
>> >Where is the documentation and evidence for this huge decision? I call
>> upon
>> >ICANN to publish and disclose the "inquiries" that were received that
>> caused
>> >this delay. Where are the minutes of the board meeting where this
>> decision
>> >was made? How did the board members vote - or, as it appears, was this
>> >indeed a decision on the part of "staff?"
>> >
>> >Delaying a month, and cutting the application period down to less than
>> a
>> >month, with no prior notice, and against a board-debated and passed
>> >resolution goes beyond any expectation of fair and open process.
>> >
>>
>> What can I add?
>>
>> Maybe a parallel story.
>> What was the understanding (and expectations) of the people that were in
>>  Yokohama about member-nomination?
>> I heard an affirmation from the Board about a ratio 1:2 in the committee
>> -nominated vs. member-nominated seats, and a 1 month member-nomination
>> period.
>> What this turns out to be in practice (I take the example I am
>> interested into, i.e. Europe) 5 pre-allocated seat on the ballot, and 15
>>  days (moreover in the traditional European vacation period) to get 719
>> endorsements.
>> Additional nicety: no whatsoever answer from "ICANN Staff" to the
>> questions I am repeatedly asking about modalities for submission of
>> candidatures.
>> And, BTW, the recent instructions at ICANN's (see http://
>> members.icann.org/memcand.html) read:
>>
>> "If you would like to submit your name as a candidate for member-
>> nomination, please send an email to nominations@icann.org to obtain
>> instructions"
>>
>> You would expect to receive an E-Mail in answer to your request. Well,
>> good luck, I'm still waiting.
>>
>> But then, as I commented few minutes ago on a different subject, "so
>> what?". Didn't we know it already? And is it a sufficient reason to give
>>  up?
>>
>> My answer is "no". And I know that yours is "no" as well. The problem is
>>  how to get organized to be effective, not how to express a (sterile?)
>> protest.
>>
>> We are on opposite sides of the fence on many subjects, but we have
>> known eachother for so long that I hope you will accept my friendly
>> advice.
>> Don't be upset, make sure you can make it with the new deadlines, be
>> ready for more surprises.
>> In all fairness, that's what I am doing for *my* issue with ICANN.
>>
>> But what do the others think?
>>
>> Regards
>> Roberto
>> --
>> 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>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>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