RE: [ga] DNSO Review

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Peter,
At 07:10 04/10/00, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:pdeblanc@usvi.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 7:49 AM
>To: 'roberto.gaetano@voila.fr'; 'ga@dnso.org'
>Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review
>The DNSO review certainly warrants the highest level of attention and
>formality that it could get. The NC's decision to NOT create a WG is sending
>a signal to the constituencies that this review is not a project of major
>significance.

Agreed. First question is therefore to decide about the appropriate form of
the reponse. Due to the importance of what follows, I would ask we consider
not to respond until the WG has been created. Our role is also to protect
ICANN and DNSO against such errors and from possible disbanding.

>I believe that it IS a project of major significance. There are developing
>factions within the constituencies that advocate working outside of the
>ICANN model, and establishing 'arm's-length, peer-to-peer' relationships
>with ICANN. If this happens, it will be clear to the world that ICANN is not
>a "global NGO"; in fact it will make ICANN look more like a US-centric shell
>company attempting to run and control the world wide Internet.

True. As an example ICANN acts now as a Registrar for the NTIA selling first
level DNs (what is spelled out as contrary to its charter in its by laws). In
several cases it plainly makes acceptance of the nature, interests and size
of the organizations it relates with, against its Charter.

IMHO the main danger is not that behaviour they may claim as self defence.
It is in the example they give and in the consequences as there are several
contingency root systems are ready/projected (I know already about two I
discovered in looking for a DNS system for ".sys").

>This would not bode well for the desired (by ICANN) turn-over of control of
>the root servers from the US Department of Commerce to ICANN.
>One way to bring some of these factions back to the table is the
>formalization of the review process, with the very real possibility that
>there can and will be some changes.
>
>WG's presumably are composed of individuals, drawn from all the
>constituencies, who are interested in achieving a consensus based solution.
>While in the WG these individuals presumable subordinate their constituency
>politics anough to be logical, rational, and fair to all concerned. (in a
>perfect world ;-) )
>I would like to see WG level activity for the review.
>I would like to see the ICANN original concept succeed.

We need an ICANN stickingto its consensus secretariat role.
However there is a real problem in having the lawyers who devised nice
to be circumvented by-laws to keep being paid to help circumventing them.
As we cannot hire a lawyer to fight the NC, I suppose the only sensible
response is to show that the system does not work in not responding the
NC and in writing the BoD why?
Jefsey

--
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