[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [IFWP] Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion -----> trust
At 01:01 PM 10/14/99 , R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
>Jay Fenello wrote:
> > At 03:02 PM 10/13/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
> > >
> > >you understand, I am sure, but simply don't accept, that
> > others (like the
> > >USG and what I percieve the vast majority of those in the Internet
> > >community that are participating in this process) think that
> > what is being
> > >done is fully consistent with, and indeed implements, the
> > White Paper. As
> > >for the Green Paper, the White Paper reflected the fact that the vast
> > >majority of those that commented on the Green Paper
> > completely rejected its
> > >underlying concepts.
> > That is not correct!
>Well, that the vast majority of the comments to the Green Paper was against
Against what, specifically?
>is on record, and everyone can see by him/herself at
>If there was agreement on it, why on earth would USG have issued a
>completely different document (the Whiter Paper)?
As described previously, the Green Paper (pro-US
and pro-small business) came under attack from
those supporting a pro-European, pro-Socialistic,
pro-regulatory approach to Internet governance.
Consequently, the White Paper changed to become
a more geopolitically neutral document.
> > The Green Paper [GP] was the result of an extensive
> > U.S. Government sponsored inquiry into the Internet
> > Governance question. It was an attempt to resolve
> > the dispute between the supporters of the gTLD-MoU
> > (another governance proposal), and what Joe likes
> > to refer to as the "outliers".
> > [Note ==> the so-called "outliers" were once a
> > *majority* of the IFWP process, as the consensus
> > points from that series of four world-wide
> > meetings easily confirm.]
>Indeed there were some points of consensus in the IFWP process, but the IFWP
>process itself is not at all the only input thet USG before and ICANN after
>There were many people and organizations that did not participate at all in
>the IFWP process.
If there were these many other people and organizations,
who were they? What did they say? What were the reasons
for their positions? What kind of agreements were made?
The only information that I've seen are a few leaked
emails from Vint Cerf (MCI) and John Patrick (IBM/GIP) --
the same people rumored to be pulling ICANN's strings --
and some comments by Paul Twomey of the GAC that some
consultations were held.
>In fact, there is no reason at all to consider
>participation in the IFWP process as the "preferred" method of
>participation, not to speak about being the only one to be taken into
> > When the GP was announced, it received fierce
> > opposition from the more Socialisticly inclined
> > European power base, the gTLD-MoU supporters,
> > and the popular media. It was also tied to the
> > redirection of the Root Servers by Jon Postel,
> > in what many considered to be a warning to the
> > U.S. Government.
>Oh, then Joe *was indeed* correct when he wrote that the Green Paper faced
>strong opposition ;>).
>I disagree on the fact that EU is more "Socialisticly inclined", but that
>does not really matter, unless you assume that the opinion of the
>"Socialisticly inclined" should count less than the supposedly
> > So, the U.S. backed down to the White Paper.
>Therefore, the Green Paper is dead and buried.
>Why do we continue talking about it?
The evolution of the Green Paper to the White
Paper, did not overturn the positions in the
former. It only deferred those decisions to
the consensus of the community, as defined by
a duly formed ICANN.
ICANN has circumvented these intentions, by
assuming that the White Paper was a defeat of
everything that the Green Paper stood for.
This is an affront to what makes America great.
So, our choices today are, emulate the success
of the American model, or capitulate to the
collectivists who prefer mediocrity and control.
> > Instead of deciding the divisive issues, the
> > White Paper laid out a framework for self
> > governance, with the stated intention that
> > this self governance would fairly decide
> > these issues.
> > Now, according to Joe Sims, we can see that
> > the backers of ICANN believe that the White
> > Paper was a victory for the gTLD-MoU forces.
>I have the impression, though, that the White Paper has taken elements from
>the gTLD-MoU proposal, like a role for WIPO, prevoiusly absent. To call it a
>victory or not is a question that I leave to the mass-media, that need to
>use these words to sell. I would simply say that it was setting the basis
>for a more equitable solution.
> > Consequently, they have pursued an agenda to
> > implement the gTLD-MoU, without any regard
> > to other community input.
>I don't have the same impression.
>There are many things that are much different in ICANN's plan and in the
>gTLD-MoU plan. What I can agree upon, is that ICANN is taking input not only
>from the former IFWP, but also from commercial interests, governments,
>trademark lawyers, and so on (and also, of course, from the former
>supporters of the gTLD-MoU, like from any other group).
>Whether they will implement a policy that is a fair balance among all
>different parts in the debate, is a good question (as you know, I have quite
>some points of disagreement with ICANN as is now).
>But that they are deliberately ignoring all voices in disagreement with the
>gTLD-MoU, is something that I am not buying.
New Media Relations