[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair - More wild statements by Generalisimo Sola
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair - More wild statements by Generalisimo Sola
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 11:02:05 +0100
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Generalisimo Sola and all,
> >Your comments also betray a worrying lack of knowledge about the history of
> >the DNSO. This is not entirely surprising, since you were not at the
> >meeting in Singapore where it was formed and you were not involved in the
> >compromise that led to its creation.
> Wrong. I was in Singapore. Check your notes.
> > Perhaps this explains disdainful
> >attitude toward the General Assembly that is so entirely opposite to the
> >spirit of that meeting.
> You keep talking about agreements that are not in the bylaws. The reason
> why they are not in the bylaws is because they were not agreements:
This is an argument in a circle, and not factual as well...
> Singapore was a step forward and Paris was a manouver to try to delay the
> process. The final agreements are in the ICANN bylaws, anything else you
> call an agreement is just in your mind.
> >You say I didn't comment on WG-A. That is false. I made extensive comments
> >on the WG-A, they were communicated by way of the ccTLD Names Council
> >members. Other comments from ccTLD members were also channeled through the
> >same method. The desire was to speak as a consituency, with one (strong)
> >voice. (I note, however, that the Names Council did not see fit to publish
> >the responses of the constituencies, which they solicited.)
> Where did you send them to? If you had sent them to the official address,
> published in the website and pretty well known, they would be published.
This is also not factual either. It is well known and well published that
the archives of several of the DNSO's mailing lists are not accurate and
many of posts sent to firstname.lastname@example.org as well as others, never were
entered into those archives.
> >You imply that I have not been a participant, you imply that I am only
> >complaining about lack of consensus. I say you are wrong, I say that I have
> >been a very active participant in these proceedings, as you well know.
> I have not implied anything. I know you are an active participant.
> >I find the implication that I have done no work, and hence have no right to
> >criticize, insulting - not only to me, but to others who have questioned the
> >metric you have used to guage consensus. Also, if you have something to say
> >about my participation, say it directly to me instead of couching it in the
> >passive voice. If cannot say something directly, then say nothing.
> Your participation is sometimes one of the most interesting ones. I am just
> tired of personal attacks against me and the names council because we do
> act in the way you wold like as to.
The DNSO/NC is supposed to be representative of the Stakeholders,
currently it is not and cannot be as there has yet to be an election of
the "NC". What we have now is a "pNC" which was questionably
APPOINTED in Berlin by the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board.
> >You say also that it is against the interests of my organization that the
> >Names Council should function at all. I assume that by "my organization"
> >you are referring to the International Association of Top Level Domains
> >(IATLD), which has as its primary mission preserving RFC 1591 as the source
> >of authority for all delegations of TLDs, and as the starting point from
> >which changes in the governance of TLDs should proceed.
> > There are two
> >possible interpretations of your comments - well, three. First is that you
> >believe that the Names Council should be against RFC 1591, which has quite
> >creditably ensured Internet stability in the domain name space for many
> >years. If the Names Council were against RFC 1591, then yes, we would hope
> >that it didn't work.
> >The second intepretation would be that you believe we were against the ICANN
> >process in general. That would be laughably false. As evidence I point to
> >the extensive involvement in the ICANN process by the IATLD, which includes
> >my own work mentioned above, as well as meetings with ICANN Board members,
> >close co-operation with IANA, and successful efforts by the IATLD to defuse
> >tensions between members of the GAC and ccTLD managers. On top of that, one
> >of our number is a member of the Names Council itself!
> >The third possibility is that you didn't think before you typed. I leave it
> >to readers to decide if that is the case.
> How abou the truth?
Yeah, how about some truth from you Generalisimo?!! That would be
novel and refreshing!
> You are not interested in changes of the status quo (call it RFC 1951). You
> believe that RFC 1951 will defend rogue ccTLD registries from falling under
> the ruling of the country for which the ccTLD was supposed to be ment.
> I believe that it clearly doesn't now, and so far there is no need for
> change, but it is just a question of interpretation.
Change is inevitable, and at this juncture very necessary.
> The best way of having no changes is having a DNSO that is not operational.
> The best way of having a DNSO that is not operational is to make sure that
> is managment (Names Council) has no power whatsoever, even if it represents
> the contituecies of the DNSO.
CUrrently, and legitimately the DNSO "NC" doesn't exist, only the pNC
does, which is of questionable legitimacy itself. Hence you have a DNSO
that is really not legitimately operational.
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208