[wg-review] 3.Constituencies - RTF Report

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

Mr, Crispin,
I have been on this list long enough to know better than to dash off a fast
reply using terms other than my own, particularly to yourself, and I
applogize for it.
Now, My shorter second response, our purpose in this wg is very real in
looking at all parts of the organization which we are trying to improve, in
spite of what it may sound like from some of the postings.  More specific. 
It is a coporate structure, and I'll not get into the attorney's discussion,
I'm not one.  It has, as you've pointed out, accurately, obligations and
responsibilities to registrars, registries, et al.  There is also the fact
that we are dealing with a rigid structure trying to deal with a fluid
developing set of domain servers and roots that are not going to stop
growing and developing.  ICANN can work with the existing dns/root and allow
for and encompass the development of new systems (for lack of proper term,
slack please for the newbie), needful is ability from within to respond to
what's coming up FAST in the real world.  It is not in the interest of the
established big companies to have the net become an anarchy of roots and
related systems.  Governments move too slow, ICANN cannot become the
byzantine behemoth you sited from my poorly worded first response. 
Government can't move fast enough, and some very large companies can't
either.  USG is phasing in ICANN to take what it's been doing so far, and
it's one of the first times in my experience (I'm 55) that it moves in this
direction.  Simple in the beginning, supervising, by agreements over the
specifics you sited.  But it cannot rigidly ignore what's going on around
it.  Domain names are it's core responsibility, yet it issues a TLD which is
on another root system (dot biz) as though ICANN and it's current set of
contracts, responsabilities and obligations are all that is and all that is
going to be.  

Tremendous memberships of mega-size groups, you are right, can't go.  But
well spread groups of manageable size and responsive to specific groups of
net involved people and businesses as well as government groups (as many
countries do not have open unregulated internet).  All need fora to present
issues appropriate for ICANN be it GA or @large along with constituencies. 
Registries/registrars, links to servers/hardware/backbone, more--you know
more about the detail as you are in the business.  

Maybe the main thing I'm trying to get across is that rigidity is the
fastest way for ICANN to fail, faster than attorney's suits for monopolistic
practices, or bylaws failures/infractions, or USG pulling back on the
remaining strings.  But we can't just let ICANN flounder and holler "let's
set up the after ICANN next group" or "lets vivisect ICANN and give the
pieces to the Senate, or whoever".  We need for you and the companies with
whom you work (no indictment, recognition apparent position) and the other
less easily categorizable members (again no indictment).

This isn't totally complete, and it's written straight out.  Kent, Sotiris,
Greg, am I making any sense at all?


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html