Re: [ga] the physical GA and the Names Council (Melbourne)

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

Joop and all remaining assembly members,

  Thank you Joop for you insights and opinions of the "Happenings" in
Melbourne.  Much appreciated.  Some of our members attending are also
exchanging perspectives as well.  We have also heard Dave Crockers
take on the NC meeting and the presentation given by Joe Simms and
Louis Touton on the Versign "Deal" which it seems that they wish to
pass through unreviewed.

J J Teernstra wrote:

> Dear fellow GA members,
>
> What follows is my subjective take on yesterday's events in Melbourne.
>
> I expected that this would be a watershed ICANN meeting and it is turning
> out that it may indeed be so.
> The first signs are bad for ICANN and they are typical for impending
> revolutions or shipwrecks:  passengers are getting off. The physical GA has
> lost its spark and many of its participants. It reflects what has been
> happening on the GA list: many serious and keen participants have left.
> This co-incides with the explosive activity that has started in the
> non-ICANN world of Domain Names in the last few weeks.(especially New.Net)
>
> The constituencies of the DNSO are unhappy with what their Names Council can
> do for them. The WG for the review of the DNSO was furious because of the
> way they were not given time to do a proper job (less than 3 weeks).
> My first meeting was with WG members. YJ Park, Eric Dierker and Danny
> Younger were already there when I arrived on the evening of the 9th.
> Danny Younger is the man who put a 60 page report about what came out of the
> WG to the ICANN comment area (NC task force report comment). A report that
> contains much of the substance that the NC task force report left out. This
> is the new blood that has come into the discussions, thanks to the WG.
>
> On-line too, it was WG members who were active.
> The GA looked abandoned. Gone were the traditional long row of speakers,
> waiting for their turn at the microphones.
> There was perhaps some built-in discouragement, since only a microphone on
> the podium was available.
> When Roberto asked for public comments on the Verisign deal, there was just
> silence. (!)
>
> The result of all this was, that, after YJ's report on the WG in the absence
> of Greg Burton, and Danny's summary of the WG's recommendations, yours truly
> ended up addressing the IDNH -part of the WG report, the current state of
> organization of the IDNO (in response to inquiries by Chuck Gomez) and, of
> course again the well worn arguments for the necessity of an IDNO (or IDNH)
> constituency.
>
> The Names Council was aware of the mood of the GA.
>
> Just as I thought hat the NC would settle into its usual routines (I had
> already walked out), I came back into a presentation by Joe Sims and Louis
> Touton on the Verisign deal, which changed the mood of the NC members radically.
> Finally it was their turn to be , uhm...  irritated.  Michael Schneider
> ,(sorry for my name error yesterday)  proposed a resolution, (please check
> the Berkman archive for the precise text) asking the Board not to sign the
> deal, until enough time had been given to the constituencies to properly
> evaluate it.
> Staff strongly argued against the resolution.
> But the bypassing of the DNSO by the Staff was not appreciated and it gave
> the NC the much needed opportunity to finally score points with their
> constituents.
>
> I have no doubt that that the aggressive attitude of the Staff (Touton: it's
> either plan A, take it or leave it or plan B (falling back on the '99
> agreement), take it or leave it) aggravated the NC members further.
>
> The mood had changed. Michael Schneider's motion was passed with no
> opposition and only 3 abstentions.
>
> The NC has finally found the chance to redeem itself and it was ironic that
> Peter de Blanc (ccTLD's) drew applause using the exact words that a  WG
> member had posted in protest against the treatment that they had received
> from the hands of the NC.  <g>
>
> The NC report (Phil Sheppard) to the Board today did contain a reference to
> the need to fix the lack of an Individuals'constituency.
>
> More tomorrow, when the Board is expected to address the Verisign-deal
> process and DNSO Review issues.
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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