Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

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

Roeland, Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:34 PM
>
> > I don't have any way of knowing what the fees might be.
> >
> > I do believe though that it is very difficult to implement
> > restrictions
> > unless there is a way to automate the process.  But if the
> > restrictions must
> > be controlled manually, it won't scale.  If there is a small number of
> > names, scaling is not an issue.  The more the number of names
> > increases the
> > more scaling becomes an issue.
>
> Policies according to the original charter for ORG, are almost impossible to
> maintain automagically. You stated this yourself, years ago. I was one of
> those that agreed. In fact, none of the three charters are maintainable nor
> are they scalable. This argument was made in defense of the accusation made,
> against NSI, for allowing erosion of the com/net/org charters. I recall that
> you put forth a defense for having ORG and NET become the overflow for COM,
> as an NSI practice, at that time. This happened on the DOMAIN-POLICY list,
> before ICANN was formed.

  I remember this as Roeland states here also, quite clearly.

>
>
> IMNSHO, most of the concern, that I see expressed, comes from a promise to
> redefine, but not having presented the new definition(s). Yet, we are asked
> to accept the new definition, no matter what it is. This is the equivalent
> of buying a pig in a poke-sack. No wonder folks are uneasy about it... duh!

  Exactly!  And this is inconsistent with good practice as well as good policy
making, unless you already know in advance, or suspect that such a policy
change is not going to be met well by those effected by such a policy
change.  It is underhanded, unfair, and illegitimate...

>
>
> The whole thing looks like an end-run, around the DNSO and the @large. The
> disturbing thing is that is by-passes a great deal of policy discussion and
> removes some policy control from the ICANN.

  The ICANN BoD has made a fairly regular practice of conducting its
business in this manner almost from the get-go.  As such, trust has fallen
off rather dramatically.

>
>
> --
> 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