Re[6]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

[William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>]

Tuesday, Tuesday, September 04, 2001, 1:16:16 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> William, I am probably wasting several of my alloted 5 posts per day
> here, answering you. 

> What is your point?

> That we (ccTLD) should have done more prior to Stockholm?

> If you are interested in history, take a look at
> http://www.wwtld.org/communique/

> I am working in  ccTLD to move forward, into a satisfactory
> relationship with ICANN. I do not have any criticism here. We (ccTLD)
> are working towards a relationship that is fair to all concerned.

> It is that simple.

> What are you looking for?

Something to support the ccTLD community's claims that it's issues
have been ignored by ICANN.

What I have found though, is that the ccTLD community has been the one
to fail to bring their issues to ICANN or the DNSO NC or GA.

That they are discovering their issues now is of little relevance to
the discussion about whether the ccTLD's justification for their
demand to become an SO was a valid one.

What I am trying to get to is the legitimacy of that demand the
premises it was based on.

But the facts and the record do not support the claim of the ccTLD
that their issues have been ignored, and that as a result they do not
belong in the DNSO.  What I see is that the ccTLD community has, until
now, failed to organize itself and present its issues in a proper
fashion so that they get the attention they deserve.

I see nothing to support the ccTLD's suggestion that they do not fit
in the DNSO, or that their issues are not relevant in the DNSO, and
that they should have their own SO.

I'm trying to get you to show me where I am wrong.  Where has the
ccTLD community attempted to bring issues before ICANN and been
ignored?  Where has the ccTLD community brought its issues to the NC
and the GA for consideration, comment, and recommendations?

I say that the situation the ccTLD community finds itself in is one of
it's own making, and not one that warrants a restructuring of the
ICANN SO setup, nor the granting of the ccTLDs a greater degree of
control over ICANN by granting them the ability to directly elect
members of the board (which is why they want the SO status).

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
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