To all interested and concerned,
Today's conference concentrated mainly on the ICANN "Accreditation
Guidelines", and the WIPO RFC-3. The meeting agenda to the
INEG campus at different available conference rooms and auditorium.
The work groups were comprised of the following:
Supporting Organization Work group
Accreditation Guidelines Work Group
ICANN Membership Work Group
The supporting organization work group finished up its deliberations
and considerations as well as several educational sub groups for
those that are not as familiar with the workings of DNS made several
overview presentations. The basic conclusions are as follows:
1.) Prepayment of Domain Names is no necessary and has little
long lasting effect on cybersquating for various self obvious
reasons.
2.) ICANN should adopt in accordance with the White Paper, that the
membership should determine any decision as to any SO proposal
by majority vote of that membership.
3.) Any and all standards recommended effecting Domains, Protocols and
IP allocation practices should come from the the supporting
organization extant, from their members (Flat membership required)
by majority vote of that membership.
4.) All Supporting Organizations must or should have direct
representation thru the members themselves.
5.) All Supporting Organizations must fall under the ICANN umbrella.
===========================================================
Much discussion was conducted with respect to the ICANN's imposed
edict of its proposed "Accreditation Guidelines".
We have posted to ICANN's comments on "Accreditation Guidelines"
E-Mail address some of our findings earlier this evening. The basic
areas of contention with the "Accreditation Guidelines" are the
following:
1.) That ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board has in fact imposed or are
attempting to impose or set the agenda a supposed need for any
"Accreditation" of any kind.
2.) That any "Accreditation Guidelines" should have been determined and
decided by the ICANN membership organization (Yet to be formed),
and is in violation of their own MOU with the NTIA and the White
Paper.
3.) That section 9 of the "Accreditation Guidelines" is extremely
harmful to the stakeholder community and posses a threat to
the stability of the Internet openness itself.
4.) That any and all proposed "Accreditation Guidelines" should be
determined by majority vote of the membership Organization which
should include any and all "Interested Parties" or the stakeholders,
as required by the White Paper.
Also in today's workshops here in Dallas at the INEG campus,
there has been much discussion regarding the ICANN's proposed
"Accreditation Guidelines" with respect to the WIOP RFC-3.
Durring these various workshops consisting of stakeholders
from around the globe that have seen the ICANN and WIPO show
little or no interest in their concerns we have reviewed form
many sources, alternative solutions to objectives that the
ICANN seems to be interested in "Imposing" without Stakeholder
consent, upon the Global Stakeholder community. Of all of
their different ideas and comments that have been reviewed,
discussed, and voted upon by our 89,000 stakeholders/members,
we have hence determined by that plurality of stakeholders in
the majority, recommended the critique done by A. Michael Froomkin,
University of Miami. It can be found at the following URL address:
http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf/critique.htm .
Please review this critique in it's entirety with respect to the
WIPO RFC-3 proposal.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208