Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

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

Sandy and all assembly members,

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> An aside: can people please try trimming messages? This had, top to bottom:
>         Jeff, coomenting on Marc
>         Marc, commenting on Chuck
>         Chuck, in a message that could have been a new thread but quoted me
>         me, replying to Roeland
> I'm the only one who'd done any trimming. The thing had three copies of the
> list footer at the bottom.

  This is done Sandy so that the thread can be followed more readily.

>
>
> > marc and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Yes I cought the oxymoran in Chucks comment (See below)
> > also...  Seems others have not however...
> >
> >   So I suppose the onely question reamaining is do we try to fix
> > ICANN or do we seek to replace it and start all over again?
>
> Do we have that choice? And who are the "we" in that sentence?

  The stakeholder and the internet community.

>
>
> What groups might have the power to dismantle, or otherwise fundamentally
> change ICANN?

  Good question.  In that ICANN is a creation by contract to the USG
through the DOC/NTIA it would have to be the DOC/NTIA that would
need to dismantle ICANN should that be the choice of preference.
Should the choice to "Change" ICANN, it would be the collective
efforts of the stakeholder and Internet community to make this happen
of course.

>
>
> Governments almost certainly could, but they seem generally to accept the
> compromises that have been reached. I can imagine (and hope to see)
> various national gov'ts backing the claims for independence of their
> ccTLD managers, but I don't expect gov'ts to want to start over. If
> they did, I'd worry about what might be on their agendas.

  Well as you know some governments have already started over.
China comes to mind...

>
>
> The Internet and telecommunications industries? They appear to be the
> main beneficiaries of the current structure. I don't see them as agents
> for change here, other than further power grabs like the current attempt
> to reduce At large director positions.
>
> The IETF and various implementers of the hardware and software that run
> the whole thing?

  I was not aware that the IETF ever implemented any hardware or
software.  They attempt to set standards for software development
of various types.  As a long time member of the IETF and active
participant in several standards Working Groups, presently and in the
past, this has not changed.

> Perhaps there's some remote hope there; technical changes
> might introduce other naming or indexing schemes that change the role of
> DNS and therefore of ICANN. I do not, however, expect any such event soon.

  Indeed this is already occurring both inside of the IETF and outside of
it. OpenBSD is one more notable example outside of the IETF.

>
>
> The users? Most of them seem neither to know much about these issues nor
> to be remarkably eager to learn.

  True for the most part.  But this is changing gradually.

>
>
> For any that do, there are language barriers. Even for native English
> speakers, some of the more technical parts of various discussions are
> likely incomprehensible.

  If you are not willing and eager to learn, yes various discussions are
likely to be difficult to comprehend.  However if not, than of course
this is not a big hill to climb for any reasonably intelligent individual
that is presently non-technical.

> That doesn't always matter -- sometimes the
> technical stuuf is irrelevant to the policy issues anyway -- but there
> are times when it does.

  Good point to a degree.  And here is where allot of the rub is.
Technical stuff is what makes the Internet work, and even is
central to it's existence.  Policy on the other hand is not.  Policy
still is very important as to how such technology should be used,
and even developed.

>
>
> Apart from language barriers, organising users into an effective force
> here is far from a simple problem.

  It is not simple.  But if it was would it be even need to be done?
Most likely not.  Easy answers or solutions are not always available.


>
>
> So my take on it is that there's no credible hope of replacing ICANN.
> We'll just have to fix it.

  Perhaps.  Is that what has been going on for about 1 1/2 years
without much if any success?  I think ICANN can be fixed,
but to do so will require getting users involved and allowed to
be involved.  The ICANN BOD and staff thus far has not
been willing the users/stakeholders to be involved.  In fact
many Domain name holders/Stakeholders have been thwarted
from involvement as well.

>
>
> Step one is getting nine openly elected board members seated.

  Very much agreed here!  >;)  Also allowing users the vote for all
of the At-Large Bod members and 9 not 6.

>
>
> > Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you. I am glad that one of the major stakeholders, if not THE major,
> > > recognizes that all this ICANN community talk is fake.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Marc@Schneiders.ORG
> > >
> > > On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, at 10:14 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't disagree with any of the arguments about the failure of the
> > > > consensus system within ICANN but I attribute that to the fact that no valid
> > > > consensus development process has ever been put into place.  I also
> > > > recognize that such a task would be very challenging.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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