RE: [wg-c] registry contracts

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I thought I was saying that the definition fell within technical
coordination. Interesting to consider that you think it is outside, and that
would be an extension of ICANN's authority. Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 10:28 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; Christopher Ambler
Subject: RE: [wg-c] registry contracts



So it is your position that ICANN is more than just a "technical
coordination"
organization, as their MoU with the DOC states that they are?

ICANN keeps denying they are anything more than that, but I also don't see
how
economic models come under technical coordination.  Of course, neither does
uniform
dispute policies.

Of course, we all knew this all along, despite the MoU and Esther's constant
denials, that ICANN is indeed about Internet Governance, but they are loath
to admit
it.

Nice to see someone like Marilyn willing to stand up and admit it.

On 14-Nov-99 Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> 
> Actually, I think that the issue of for profit vs. non profit does lie
> within ICANN's scope of authority, Chris.  Or at least the parameters of
> behavior lie within their authority. Marilyn Cade
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:cambler@iodesign.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 4:14 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] registry contracts
> 
> 
>> Why are we even bothering to discuss the business models of 
>> independent corporations?  If ICANN is for "technical management" and 
>> not "Internet governance" wouldn't that mean that a corporation's 
>> business model is far outside the scope of ICANN to control or even 
>> to suggest?  Should we not instead be focused on the technical 
>> considerations and qualifications ONLY?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Christopher

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934