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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear DPF,
contracts are no better. Complex, delaying, blocking innovation. Who said 
that Staff meant "single team authoritative for failures".

The only solution is no ICANN creep. ICP-1 extended to every TLD. A single 
a minima rule of the game for everyone. So every one is in the same field 
and can build on top and every ccTLD be protected: ICANN wants to be able 
to change the contract terms? so will want the Gov: how do you want the 
ccTLD to build in stability. General rules cannot renegotiated...  so it is 
to each country and TLD Manager to adapt. ICP-1 should only be reviewed by 
the DNSO: NSI and every TLD manager cc/s/open alike.

BTW, Danny, I strongly object that the DNSO would disapear: a) it would be 
a DN disarray and an USG takeover, who wants that? b) to the countrary the 
SOs must take over the Staff (I must acknowledge that I did not understand 
the position of Karl Auerbach on this: he is right).

The question is only: will we agree with Staff on its withrawall and 
authority transfer to the SOs or will we have to fight our own Staff to get 
the ICANN back in its shoes?

We have to prepare both.
Jefsey





On 07:10 08/09/01, DPF said:
>On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:57:30 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
><ga_list@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >William,
> >
> >>
> >>The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
> >>on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
> >>contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
> >>and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
> >>freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
> >>or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.
> >
> >That attitude from ICANN would show that they are really against arrogance.
>
>Actually to some degree the above is what ICANN tried at first.  They
>tried unilateral contracts and bills for services.  The ccTLDs said
>naff off and ICANN realised that in a fight between ICANN and several
>dozen ccTLDs backed by their sovereign governments ICANN would not
>even come a close second but would lose so badly it would probably
>never be given policy control of Root Server A.
>
>DPF
>--
>david@farrar.com
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>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