Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>]

Patrick,
just a few points:

At 12:33 03.06.2001 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
>(1)    The Names Council is looking to save money.  That's what they say,
>anyway.  I see that as quite false.  In fact, yesterday's webcast made in
>quite clear they had a "slush fund" which they could draw on if needed.  And
>ICANN should fund them, anyway.
>
>BTW Was I mistaken or did Verisign just cough up $100,000?  What was that
>for?  And what did Verisign get in return?  Do you believe pure generosity
>of spirit !!!

The 100.000 was "matching funds" - if others coughed up their part, 
Verisign would allocate a similar amount.

>(2)    There is censorship afoot.  Purportedly because of (1) the Names
>Council wants to close down some lists.  They already suggested closing
>GA-FULL and I reckon that's just being held over until after the Sotckholm
>conference.  The one sublist that was really taking off was GA-ROOTS.  So
>naturally naysayers attacked it -- a good excuse.

There will be no NC working group on the issue. This does not mean that the 
list should be closed. Don't believe it until you see it.

>(3)    Alternate Roots !!  Probably the most critical issue to face ICANN in
>the world today.  In fact, they have the potential to completely undermine
>the whole structure.  And I really don't care if it is having *right now* --
>it certainly COULD and I think WILL.  But the argument is that the subject
>is *out of scope*.   Perhaps a standard line from ICANN staff.
>
>But it's a clever trick.  It means that the Names Council CAN and almost
>certainly WILL close down the GA-ROOTS mailing list at any time they like.

see above. My opinion is that "alternate roots" are a Bad Idea, and 
unlikely to have any big influence anyway. But I think having a GA sublist 
to have that argument on is a Good Thing.

>(4)     The ICANN CEO, Stuart Lynn came up with his own policy statement.
>This received mixed reviews but they were mostly negative.  Apart from the
>content, I think he made several mistakes in his approach.  But he's new to
>the job and doesn't quite understand all the dynamics yet.  My guess is that
>Kent Crispin wrote the statement and Stuart appended his name afterwards.
>Whatever the truth the ICANN view is quite clear.  Wrong but clear ;-)

You're wrong. Stuart wrote it himself, drawing on other sources. The points 
he got wrong are points that Kent would never have missed.
And there have been a lot of people agreeing with him.

>One more point.  It has been argued that my intention in setting up a Roots
>mailing list was to "capture" the debate.  More FUD.  Moving the debate to a
>separate list just "allowed" the debate room to breathe.  It also sheltered
>the main GA list from a lot of hostility.

I think GA-ROOTS was a Good Idea. And I think we'll keep it.

--
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