[ga] ?:? .AC

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>]

From: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@nic.AC>
"the Council members facilitate/encourage/cajole discussion on specific topics.  The members 
of the Board do not have "power"...
====

Have you signed a contract for the .AC top-level-domain (TLD) ?
http://www.AC.nic

Has "the Board" fixed your .AC prices ?

How much do you pay "the Board" to maintain the .AC TLD ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
?:? .AC 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@nic.AC>
To: <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
Cc: <paulos@sdnp.org.mw>; "Stephan Welzel/Denic" <welzel@denic.de>; <africann@lists.gh>; <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....


> barrister@chambers.gen.nz wrote:
> 
> >I see a broader scope itself as advantageous -a broader scope simply 
> >increases the power of the SO, as any policy made within the scope must 
> >be carried out by the Board. If its not in the scope, then the Board can 
> >ignore the SO.
> >  
> >
> Power of the SO - what power??  ... carried out by the Board .......????
> 
> The SO is a _forum_ for discussion and development of Recommended Best 
> Practice which by consensus may become Policy of Best Practice. It is 
> not "power" of Council members of the SO - it is the Council members 
> facilitate/encourage/cajole discussion on specific topics.  The members 
> of the Board do not have "power" (other than to hire and fire staff) - 
> they are there to ensure the forums operate efficiently - and 
> discussions are coordinated.
> 
> Giving the ICANN Board "power" has already proven to be stupid - 
> reference the iDN debate. ICANN should not be "in the way" of JPRS' (or 
> any Registry's) ability to best serve it's customers particularly where 
> the IETF have developed a standard in an open and transparent manner to 
> ensure interoprability, security and reliability.
> 
> The ICANN Bylaws as currently drafted need to be fixed - they currently 
> take responsibility undertaken by grown adults/managers (peers of the 
> ICANN Board), and best handled at the LOCAL level, (local culture, 
> appropraite legal framework, responsive local policy making to best 
> serve the local community),  - and hand that responsibility over to 
> ICANN.  Is that what people want??  I don't think so - and also I don't 
> think it is in the interest of ICANN's long term stability.
> 
> >
> >My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
> >
> I agree and I hope we can clearly _define_ ICANN's _limited_ scope in 
> Montreal - after all that is not about power - just a simple management 
> technique :-)
> 
> Best
> 
> Paul
> 
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 

--
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