Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

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

Marc and all remaining assembly members,

  Marc, you comments in concern, have been noted here anyway.  They
do seem to express a consensus amongst a majority of stakeholders
at present.  It seems obvious that the ICANN BoD is not interested
in the DNSO's position, and especially the GA's thoughts on this matter
or any other matters that concern the DNSO, from Vint's comments
here.  As such, it seems tha the ICANN BoD is content to disregard
it's own Bylaws where it suits expediancy for them.  This of course,
is not the first time this has occured.  It is not likely to be the last.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, at 13:11 [=GMT-0500], vint cerf wrote:
> > At 06:23 PM 3/8/2001 +0100, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>
> > > these is an open mail expressing my concerns about the way
> > >ICANN's board is acting.
> > >
> > > as an individual who was and is involved in these process from the
> > >very beginning I feel to have the right to address all of you.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that, in contrary to the original intention, decisions
> > >are taken from board, even worse from boards excom only (or from
> > >staff?), without proper consultation of NC or DNSO and equivalent
> > >bodies.
> > > Yes, you have the power to do so, but you should be aware that
> > >on the long run you will loose credibility. Are you discussing
> > >matters to be decided by the board, with those which elected you ?
> > >Perhaps, but I never heard of that. Instead you are using the very
> > >old argument of time-pressure to skip proper consensus building.
> > >
> > > Let me give you some examples:
> > >
> > >1.) selection of new TLD's . Without going into details : The way
> > >how Joe Sims directed the board, by having them voting 3 (three!!!)
> > >times until the board recognized how Joe wanted them to vote
> > >(change .web to .info), showed the interested how familiar the
> > >board was with the matter they were deciding. Consultation could
> > >have helped.
> >
> > The Board is entitled to counsel from its outside counsel
> > and from its general counsel and others. Ultimately the decision
> > was the Board's and not Joe Sims'.
>
> Ultimately the point was that the DNSO was not consulted about the
> selection of new TLDs.
>
> > >2.) Internationalizing of domainnames or multi-lingual-mess. With
> > >all respect, these is nationalizing not internationalizing : are you
> > >really convinced that toshiba will use the japanese equivalent as
> > >domainname internationally? It could have some sence if national
> > >ccTLD's would do it, but they have too much respect for the
> > >process to overpass IETF and other. Nobody seems to care about
> > >the practicably : making money is more important. Should have
> > >been worked on before starting a so called testbed. Most confusing
> > >is the fact that ICANN on one side warns on the other side
> > >supports VeriSign's activities.
> >
> > Here I strongly disagree - I have been on record repeatedly
> > expressing concern about many of the efforts to explore internationalizing
> > of domain names - the technical problems are quite serious and so are
> > the various jurisdictional questions. ICANN, however, may not have
> > the ability to prevent experiments from happening. In some sense, anything
> > that is technically possible on the Internet is likely to become the
> > subject of experimentation - ranging from multi-lingual TLD efforts to
> > alternate roots and many things in between (including things like
> > telephony, video casting and so on). There is risk taken by anyone who
> > participates in an experiment or a testbed that is not specifically
> > sanctioned - ICANN can raise issues to assure public awareness of risk
> > but it may have no ability to prevent these experiments from occuring.
>
> The point is, that ICANN is allowing Verisign to make money on the
> testbed. Will ICANN allow Verisign to make more money on .COM?
>
> > >last not least
> > >3.) Splitting com-net-org registry / registrar. I simply refuse to
> > >believe that the board is willing to cancel that part of the contract.
> > >The argument astonishing : One of the main intentions of the whole
> > >construct was to weaken the power of an monopolist (NSI), now we
> > >seem to see that it works (does it really?) we try to disrupt that
> > >process instead to be happy that it works as it was intended to do.
> > >I might be worng but I could not find that the matter was brought to
> > >NC and DNSO...
> >
> > Nothing has been decided here at all - there is a proposal on the
> > table and the Board has yet to discuss it - though it will do so
> > during the Australian Board meeting this week. I don't believe any
> > decision will be made during this board meeting but because of
> > the various timing elements in the equation, the Board may have
> > to make a decision by the end of March or the opportunity may be
> > lost.
> >
> > NSI's dominant position as registrar appears to have eroded
> > considerably in the last 12 months, according to statistics
> > that I have seen - perhaps you have different views on that point?
>
> Not addressing the point: no consultation of the DNSO. There are
> rumours that this deal with Verisign is under discussion for a long
> time. If this is true the hurry is no excuse at all. Even if not,
> the DNSO should be consulted about such a far reaching matter as the
> chnage of the ORG 'charter'.
>
> > > I recognize that I am only an individual, perhaps with strange ideas
> > >such as that I would prefer the slower and not so easy democratic
> > >way instead of the more efficient board-alone decisions, but
> > >remember an head without an body is not really what you want.
> >
> > I think we want ample and public board discussion on these matters -
> > ultimately the board must make policy choices and it is a fine balance
> > between endless debate among many parties - losing opportunities for
> > lack of closure, and inadequate discussion. I hope we are able to find
> > that balance to the satisfaction of most observers - we will never
> > satisfy everyone, I think.
>
> *We* want ample *DNSO* discussion...
>
> --
> marc@schneiders.ORG
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>  http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > Vint
> >
> >
> > > Elected members should be responsible to those which elected
> > >them, but not only at election time.
> > >
> > >
> > >Siegfried Langenbach
> > >joker.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
> >
>
> --
> 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 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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