ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Dear Asaad,
proposing a response to a 4 years old question, when half the problem has been identified by Lynn as actually the wording of the question, calls for the question to be reworded. There is today no response to Lynn by the BoD.

There is absolutely no interest in providing any response until the final question has not been worded. Also, once reworded in today's wording, there will be a need to check that the ICANN format is appropriate or not. We are not interested, IMHO, in the ICANN interests, but in having the job properly done to our own best interests. I only wish that the ICANN no-members share that target and that our common interests are also their interest: today I have no element telling this is not the case.

But we all have elements showing us that the situation is confuse: only a clean sheet restart may permit us to work efficiently. ICANN loyally tried it with the ALSC. Lynn has acknowledged it was not enough. The only escalation is the DoC. We need the DoC to speak-up, clearly. Only a rebid can oblige them to that.

The alternative is simple: the ICANN will carry no more interest. As one of the best support of the ICANN policy put it in the NCC: the complexity is not to manage the DNS, but to make believe they are entitled to do it. The ICANN is like a King living in selling nobility titles. To make a living it has to be credible enough and get support from it allies. If the DoC does not endorse it.... The Rebid is also a vote of Trust. There is a big difference between reconducting an agreement no one is pleased with, and granting a new agreement.
jfc

On 09:29 03/05/02, Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. said:

I agree with Marilyn & disagree with the vote as presented to us, all this is obstruction of our ongoing work.
 
If anyone is sincere enough, then first we should have a series of discussions and second the recommended ballot should have first included couple well thought alternatives, well thought implementation plan, management feasibility study, planned funding plan, action items, solutions, management structure & background qualification and so forth in order to justify why that any new body will be better than ICANN, more qualified or can be up to the global challenges.
 
Further, the timeline posted is not reasonable at all and seems as bad as the vote ballot itself.
 
Maybe many of you don't agree with ICANN policy or strategy, maybe we have grievances, some of us ccTLD managers have problems with ICANN's decisions, but no one on the GA so far have even offered a logical ICANN alternative or even suggested a qualified body to take on the task from ICANN without disturbing our DNS operations.
 
It is always very easy to blame others and start red herrings to obstruct advancements, but it is very hard to recommend and deliver suitable alternatives.
Best Regards,
 
Asaad Alnajjar
CEO Millennium Inc.
Executive Director AINC (Arabic Internet Names Consortium)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
To: John Palmer ; ga@dnso.org
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:24 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I disagree with the vote and think this a diversion from doing useful work. Marilyn Cade
-----Original Message-----
From: John Palmer [mailto:jp@ADNS.NET]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:54 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
Ok Tom - thats 9 - Whats the magic number?
----- Original Message -----
From: jefsey
To: ga@dnso.org
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I second all this. I suggest that the icannatlarge.com presents this motion to its members and they register on the GA to participate to such a vote. May be a good occasion to have the GA list taking overt the ALSC list to be closed? This a real occasion if everyone shares in it. Like for Plan B.
jfc

On 02:14 03/05/02, Joanna Lane said:

PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE  BELOW.
Mr. James Love, a member in good standing  of the DNSO's General Assembly, has made a call for action, specifically stating:
 "I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open competition for the services now provided by ICANN. The rationale for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet community. The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet resources.
The vote should be taken within 10 days."
Seconds: John Palmer, Danny Younger.
Members who have indicated their agreement with taking a Vote:-
  1. James Love (Proponent)
  2. John Palmer (Second)
  3. Danny Younger (Second)
  4. Jeanette Hoffman
  5. Joanna Lane
  6. Sotiris Sotiropoulos
  7. Karl Auerbach
  8. .
  9. .
 
Members who have indicated their disagreement with taking a Vote:-


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>