Re[6]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear DPF,
why not to propose the ICANN to replace Andy McLauglin with WXW. Andy sees 
nationalisms everywhere, at least he would meet one.
It would speed up the governance cleaning. St. Lynn preached a single root? 
this is the result: ISO 3166 as everybody knows is hierarchical and is 
rooted in US authoritative government.
Jefsey




On 11:42 08/09/01, William X Walsh said:
>Saturday, Saturday, September 08, 2001, 2:28:39 AM, DPF wrote:
>
> > Actually .uk's position seems pretty close to not recognising ICANN's
> > authority at all.  Their position IIRC is they have a contract with
> > the estate of Jon Postel which ICANN can not terminate (DR Black
> > correct me if mis-stating).
>
>Jon Postel didn't own the namespace.  The argument wouldn't hold up
>even if they did try and claim it.
>
> > .uk would be one of the last not the first to sign a contract.
> > Remember ICANN are not just wanting ccTLDs to accept re-delegations
> > rights but also to give unlimited policy authority to ICANN.
>
>I've seen no such thing.  I think the new .au contract will closely
>resemble what they are asking for.
>
> > ICANN
> > could then start exempting words from registrations, impose the UDRP,
> > levying a tax per name, imposing structural requirements for 2nd and
> > 3rd level names etc etc.
>
>Again, none of those things have been proposed.  However, the
>registries do play a key role in the funding of ICANN, and it is from
>ICANN that their delegation flows.  So I think it makes perfect sense
>for their to be a per domain fee as a means of supporting ICANN, and I
>think that should be negotiated as a part of the contracts.
>
> >>> Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
> >>> war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.
> >>
> >>You assume the ccTLDs would be unified, and that their governments
> >>would oppose ICANN on their behalf.
>
> > I assume the major ccTLDs would be unified and their Governments would
> > back then if ICANN did what you suggested.  I can not speak for the NZ
> > Government (well not anymore :-) but on the knowledge I do have of our
> > local scene I would say it is a near certainty for us.
>
> > And the ccTLDs have done an amazing job of keeping unity over the last
> > couple of years.
>
>I disagree.  The only thing I've seen them unify behind is this
>attempt to try and gain control of the board.
>
>Honestly, I think they see the writing on the wall, that ICANN will
>start cutting deals with their governments and practically forcing
>them to sign new contracts.  I think this whole move may be nothing
>more than an attempt by them to try and stop and/or slow that process
>down.
>
>I don't believe the ccTLDs are as unified as you think, or that their
>governments are that willing to go to bat for them over ICANN.  I
>think ICANN will make a much more attractive ally for them.
>
>--
>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

--
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