[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] catch 22? - Not hardly
- To: ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] catch 22? - Not hardly
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 00:37:50 +0100
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990812025715.1813Kemail@example.com>
Jeff and all,
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Gordon Cook wrote:
> > > Jim, Esther, Mike and the remainder of the gang will not use whatever
> > > control they do have because the reprocussions would be fatal.
> > I believe you mean Joe, Esther, and Mike here. But none the less, here
> > I don't agree. They have already tried and are to some extent have used
> > their influence to force policies upon the stakeholders that are not
> > supported by them. The "Accreditation Policy" for instance, is just one example.
> I disagree. They are doing their jobs to the best of their ability in
> order to meet their respective mandates.
I don't agree completely here either. ICANN's and NSI's mandate is to
meet the terms of the White Paper and the MoU. Neither of them are
doing that currently, not even close.
> I agree they have stepped on a
> few toes. But they have too, their mandates are in conflict with existing
> reality. And policy issues are irrelevant to the goal, which is, and
> always has been - who controls the internet - or in terms we all
> understand - who runs dot.
Mandate's are most certainly relevant. It is which ones and how they
are formulated that is in conflict here. And this is one area that I do
agree with NSI vs ICANN.
> > > Whoever
> > > makes the first move will by default be thrown off the party boat and lose
> > > whatever control they did have. If this were to ever happen internet
> > > users would receive a quick education and they would be fried alive and
> > > this process forever lost.
> > This sounds good, or safe, but is not realistic.
> why not?
The stakeholders by in large are apathetic, that is the main reason why...
> > > At this time control of the internet is distributed to 150,000 entities
> > > who control the root pointers. I think it's time to ask them what they
> > > think.
> > They have been ask, and several times... Where have you been?
> Unofficially I am aware of the process. Officially I am not. NSI
> understands this. That's why their spamming their whois lists.
Well I haven't been spammed yet! >;) Neither have any of my
> It's the
> standard marketing response to increase awareness. Perfectly acceptable
> behavior for a corporation to maintain relations with it's client base.
To a point, yes.
> > > But before we do that, the quality of the discussion in these conferences
> > > must improve. ICANN's survival depends on it.
> > ICANN's survival, in it's present form is questionable at best...
> At this rate it does not look good, and the destabilization which is
> occurring at this time could cause serious problems to the
> infrastructure. You I, can not can icann, but the internet can.
> Jeff Mason
> Planet Communication & Computing Facility firstname.lastname@example.org
> Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
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