Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Thursday, August 1, 2002, 7:29:38 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister@chambers.gen.nz> wrote:
PDT> ----- Original Message -----
PDT> From: "William X Walsh" <william@wxsoft.info>
PDT> To: "Marc Schneiders" <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>
PDT> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
PDT> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 11:45 AM
PDT> Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform


PDT>          Stuart said
>> > *"A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common
>> > *interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they
>> > *don't want to be accountable to anybody."

PDT> WXW said

>> Oh please, Marc.  I know you are an alt.root advocate, but you are one
>> of the most reasonable ones, surely you can recognize that Lynn was
>> spot on right in this article, and that the reason for this "protest"
>> is clearly because the registries want to attack ICANN for doing the
>> right thing with regard to the WLS.

PDT> Of course, as often the case in relation to ccTLDs, the staff reaction is
PDT> not accurate.

PDT> ccTLDs are managers of a natural monopoly, but -say it after me - they are
PDT> accountable to their local internet communities.

PDT> Anyone who wants to know what that means in practice can join InternetNZ, as
PDT> an example, and see it in action. Or in Australia, Canada, and many other
PDT> places.

PDT> Recognising that there are cctlds where the level of that accountability can
PDT> be improved, the ccTLD movement has an active outreach programme, conducted
PDT> in part with the outreach and training programme of the RIRs.

PDT> We are working also to develop a programme jointly with the GAC to have
PDT> regional meetings.

PDT> None of this is about preserving monopolistic practices. Its about serving
PDT> the local and global internet communities, consistent with RFC 1591 and the
PDT> duty which cctld managers feel to those communities.

PDT> What we are not going to do is allow ICANN to substitute that for a duty to
PDT> ICANN.

PDT> Regards

PDT> Peter Dengate Thrush
PDT> Senior Vice Chair
PDT> Asia Pacific TLD Association

Therefore, VeriSign's participation in (monopoly of) the news article
(which could be realistically called a VeriSign press release) is
misplaced and out of order, isn't it. The goals and aspirations of the
ccTLDs are markedly different than those of VeriSign, aren't they.

The staff comments were in recognition of the obvious sour grapes
"ploy." VeriSign and Roger Cochetti are sour grapes and the ccTLDs are
being "used and exploited" to support their very "dissimilar" cause.

I am very surprised that you and the other ccTLD folks don't see that
they are being "exploited" and have not spoken-up on that issue.

Your cause is not in question here. Please take head of what is in
question and don't allow yourselves to be guilty by the association.
Demark yourselves of the parasite who is using your cause for their
very dissimilar gain.

Please don't allow your cause to be abused and stolen from you.  Stand
on your own feet.  You don't need VeriSign in your corner and it
doesn't belong there, anyway.

Thanks,





---
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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