Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Respectfully I disagree that there is an either/or concept here.
There are many shades of diversity and that is what makes life interesting.
It is the concept that "you are either in or out" that causes most of our
problems.
A little less absolutism and a little more interaction would be a good thing.
Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Todd and all assembly members,
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > I still think that ICANN's biggest political and technical hurdle to leap is
> > really what to do about other ROOT's.This may seem like a simple business
> > question but it has far reaching ramifications that stretch throughout the
> > entirety of what we know as the Internet.
>
>   ICANN and the other root structures have two choices really.
> They can either work together and co-exist and still compete, or
> they can be totally diverse.
>
> >
> >
> > Further - it needs to be noted that ICANN can develop whatever it wants
> > internally but if its processes are too oppressive and too painful to deal
> > with, then these other ROOTS will certainly gain significant numbers of
> > ICANN's existing customers and that is a serious issue to deal with.
>
>   Agreed.
>
> >
> >
> > ICANN's trying to stop the operations of these other ROOTS is equally
> > problematic since it ***will*** result in law suits and like restraining
> > orders against ICANN, its officers and its agents (the Registrars and the
> > ASO members) from prohibiting these other roots from functioning. Restraint
> > of Trade is a pretty easy claim to prove here under today's circumstances.
>
>   Also agreed.
>
> >
> >
> > As a simple example, I allege that it is possible that ICANN is playing
> > antitrust by locking out other Internet Standards Processes and
> > organizations. This is simply demonstrated by that IANA will not issue a
> > system port except to an organization that has an IETF RFC number. So no one
> > from ITU or any of the other standards orgs can submit anything for the
> > issuance of a System Port on the Global Internet unless they play ICANN's
> > PSO Game and that is clearly anti-trust since ICANN does not own the
> > Internet.
>
>   Yes this is an ever increasing problem that many seemed to have missed
> to date.
>
> > Which simply says, that without the IETF/IESG/IAB processes in
> > place, nothing gets codified as an Internet Standard and personally that is
> > the largest load of BS anywhere.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Another concept here is that the Domain Owners are more the friend of the
> > Registrars than ICANN is, and if you don't believe me, then ask Verisign how
> > many bodies to GoDaddy they lost because GoDaddy is more friendly to end
> > users at the wallet level. And most of the Domain Registrars don't realize
> > this yet because we spend so much time arguing about personal sh*t and not
> > the goals of the group.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> > Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 12:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process
> >
> > > Danny and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   Yes it was very interesting reading in light of recent events, and
> > > ongoing events.  I hope you took the liberty of passing this
> > > response of yours on to the DOC/NTIA.  ??
> > >
> > > DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > A document entitled "Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group:
> > > > Preliminary Framework" has been released by the ERC's select Task Force:
> > > > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm
> > > >
> > > > This task force consists of Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade,
> > Guillermo
> > > > Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin and
> > Philip
> > > > Sheppard -- basically the same bunch of folks that have provided us with
> > such
> > > > wonderful policy guidance so far.
> > > >
> > > > We have already had the benefit of Working Group D... unfortunately, no
> > one
> > > > on the Council ever gave its recommendations anything more than lip
> > service,
> > > > and of course they have completely eliminated all working groups.
> > > >
> > > > We have already had the benefit of "Rules of Procedures for the DNSO
> > Names
> > > > Council" to govern policy development processes within task forces and
> > > > working groups... unfortunately, no one on the Council even remembers
> > these
> > > > procedures, or what they're supposed to do when they convene a task
> > force --
> > > > they only write these rules to prove that they are busy doing something.
> > > >
> > > > And now we have the benefit of even more empty words regarding
> > "timelines"
> > > > and "opportunities for public input" by the very same people that have
> > spent
> > > > 10 months in a transfers task force accomplishing nothing related to
> > > > transfers, that won't publish a timeline, and that have used every means
> > at
> > > > their disposal to keep interested parties out of their closed task
> > forces.
> > > >
> > > > This document is just another sham to continue to foist these
> > illegitimate,
> > > > non-productive, and hardly-attended task forces upon us.   The phrase
> > > > "working group" isn't even mentioned.  Open, bottom-up, and fully
> > transparent
> > > > is being replaced by closed, top-down, and non-transparent task force
> > > > teleconferences where minutes aren't even posted.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing this group is accomplishing is preservation of the
> > horribly
> > > > failed status quo... and of course, they create the pretense that ICANN
> > is
> > > > actually involved in evolutionary reform so that the DoC will be
> > pacified.
> > > >
> > > > Same old pretty-sounding words that we've all heard before, written with
> > such
> > > > a high level of generality as to be totally useless -- just like the
> > current
> > > > Names Council, and equally not surprising as almost every committee
> > member is
> > > > or was a Council rep.
> > > >
> > > > Garbage in, Garbage out.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
> > >
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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

--
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