Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and procedure for vote

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

Marilyn and all,

  We agree here Marilyn, in theory anyway.  The problem is that the
TYPE of escrow that was determined some time ago now is
terribly inadequate and unsecured.  Therefor it does not lend itself
to stability.  As such, it cannot meet the stability doctrine of the
White Paper adequately, or for that matter at all...

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I would think the best way to deal with any risk of failure of registrars would be to implement escrow and enforce it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 2:05 PM
> To: todd glassey; Dan Steinberg; Darrell Greenwood; Alexander Svensson
> Cc: Thomas Roessler; James Love; General assembly list
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
>
> My reasons for supporting the rebidding process were specific to no other
> major changes happening in ICANN, but if I had my druthers, an organization
> like ICANN needs more than just this reform. ICANN is an ungoverned
> nightmare that needs to be restructured if not taken down totally.  I favor
> the latter  myself, too.
>
> 1)    The first issue with ICANN is that the PSO's need to be restructured
> such that there is some culpability in the voting process or standards
> management efforts. Who ever heard of a global standards organization
> without any formal membership??? That makes the totality of the standards
> group the IESG and the IAB which is a real problem in and of itself. The
> only way to address this is to pull them into some other formal framework
> which they will all object to since it means giving up their unabashed
> control over what gets routed on the Internet and what doesn't.
>
> 2)    The second issues is the methods and processes that the ASO's use in
> operating the Internet Service inferences, that being the DNS and other
> Address Management efforts. This is really all of what ICANN was/should have
> bee setup to address anyway.
>
> 3)    And the third issue is the registrars themselves and this insane set
> of rules that they are operated under at this time. The place that the most
> reform needs to take place by the way is in the Registrar's process.
>
> One final conclusion - ICANN is only necessary as the bridge between these
> three arms of services regarding Internet Processes, and without them under
> it, there is no reason for ICANN to exist whatsoever. maybe that is what
> needs to be taken back to congress!
>
> By the way - if the only really loud voices objecting to this posting you
> hear are ICANN or other ISOC/IETF/IAB/IESG members/management, then ask
> yourself why that is. The only logical answer is that they would be
> protecting their jobs or that which gives them cultural distinction from
> others, i.e. that which makes no longer a mere mortal...
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>; "Dan Steinberg"
> <synthesis@videotron.ca>; "Darrell Greenwood" <lists1@mac.com>
> Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; "James Love"
> <james.love@cptech.org>; "General assembly list" <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
>
> > Many apologies and this will be my last reply for the day -  I am sorry
> but
> > I should have been clearer in my response below that I think that this
> open
> > competition should be a regular thing. That the contracts should regularly
> > expire and then an open competition should be held for that slot. It will
> > keep the registrars on their toes and allow others into the mix. That
> being
> > said maybe a contract is awarded either for 4,5 or 10 years at most. But
> > there also in this process has to be a method of bouncing a registrar for
> > not providing a basic level of service.
> >
> > And as I have said I am also very concerned for the procedural models for
> > what happens when one registrar goes belly-up. This is happening more and
> > more these days and well, it would cripple any number of businesses if
> their
> > registrars and/or DNS service providers happened to die out from under
> them.
> > And since it is really unlikely that the registrar would send any notice
> > ahead of time to the customer let alone a letter that said "Hey sucker -
> so
> > long - its been nice and next Thursday at noon we are no
> more...Ahahahahaha"
> > so the net-net is that the registrar would very likely just close up one
> day
> > and with no notice leave their customers high and dry.
> >
> > And rather than to force the Registrars customers to deal with this kind
> of
> > gross negligence in civil court it would be better to put in place a
> > failover model that was to be implemented and some snapshot of every
> > registrar's maps such that if one of them dies the others could pickup the
> > pieces.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > To: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>; "Darrell Greenwood"
> > <lists1@mac.com>
> > Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; "James Love"
> > <james.love@cptech.org>; "General assembly list" <ga@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
> >
> >
> > > I have some more wording changes.
> > >
> > > See inline below.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> > > To: "Darrell Greenwood" <lists1@mac.com>
> > > Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; "James Love"
> > > <james.love@cptech.org>; "General assembly list" <ga@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 1:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
> > >
> > >
> > > > After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
> > > > slightly modified text as follows:
> > > >
> > > > The GA  sends a mandate too the US Department of Commerce and to the
> US
> > > Federal Trade Commission
> > >
> > > to  setup and require for perpetude,
> > >
> > > > an open
> > > > competition for the services now provided by ICANN
> > >
> > > ASO's. This new competition would address the need to develop both a US
> > > specific and an international framework for DNS management.  The
> rationale
> > > for mandating this rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> > intitial
> > > terms of refence for its own and the overall operaitons of the name
> space,
> > > and is at this time proposing even further changes. These proposed
> changes
> > >
> > > > have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
> > > > further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow
> the
> > >
> > > DoC and the US Federal trade Commission to compell the ICANN board to
> > > address the critical initiatiaves and evolutionary requirements for
> > > restructuring; the alternatives offered by others for managing key
> > Internet
> > > resources; and provide for increased scrutiny in the form of a public
> > record
> > > as a part of the ongoing ICANN process audit.
> > >
> > >
> > > TTFN
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :
> > > > >
> > > > > >On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> > > > > >>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that
> > > > > >>the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > > > > >>international framework for DNS management.  The rationale for
> > > > > >>asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> > > > > >>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> > > > > >>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> > > > > >>community. The rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the
> > > > > >>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> > > > > >>by others for managing key Internet resources."
> > > > >
> > > > > I support this text.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Darrell
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
>

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