Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Kerry,
>
> You wrote:
> > =============
> > Roberto,
> >
> > > The practical terms are, though, that while we discuss about
> > > principles and procedures, Rome burns.
> > >
> > > This whole fandango started from the continuous attempt to provide the
> > > perfect answer to the wrong question. The initial need was the
> > > expansion of the Domain Name Space and the transition to a competitive
> > > environment for the domain name registration business.
> >
> > I'd say just the opposite. The inital need was the statement of
> > principles and procedures. By the Dept of Commerce forgetting
> > that it only manages affairs *on behalf of the public*, it created a
> > travesty. The fandago (tho Esther's phrase, "power struggle," is
> > more accurate) is the direct consequence of this 'top-down'
> > creation of a structure which has since been trying desperately (i.e.
> > unprincipledly) to garner a membership to represent.
> >
> You seem to assume that in the beginning, there was the White Paper (or at
> least the first intervention of DOC, i.e. the Green Paper).
> This is not true. This story started well before that, originated by the
> pure and simple market need for new gTLDs.
Ahhh Roberto, you speak as if you were there and participated. Well
I don't recall seeing your name or E-Mail address in the IAHC-Discuss list
or the gTLD-MoU list either. I know I was there. None the less, yes
indeed this did all start over 4 years ago anyway by a capture attempt
by the IAHC bunch, that thankfully failed and unfortunately led to the
DOC and the Green paper... This much you have right. But simple,
it was not!!!
>
>
> The intervention of USG/DOC was in fact one of the many attempts to change
> everything, with the result of changing nothing, up to the point that people
> may legitimaly wonder whether this (i.e. to keep the statu quo) was not in
> fact the real objective.
Hummmm? Interesting viewpoint. One might also wonder, conversely
if the ICANN is yet not another attempt of a "Capture" attempt of the
central resources of the internet as well as a oligarchy approach to
Internet policy making as well... ICANN=IAHC=gTld-MoU, perhaps?
>
>
> And this is, again, the risk we are facing: to push the legitimate criticism
> on some specific points to the extent that we want to stop the process
> completely, and to start anew.
It seems more like there is a lack of the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board
to embrace openness, transparency, and accountability to the stakeholders.
And that same ICANN (Initial?) Interim board and it's basterd stepchildren,
the SO's, are severely lacking a willingness to compromise or see anything
from any perspective besides their own narrow field of policy view.
>
>
> > > I confess that, when I was a school student, I liked this
> > > approach. I was very perfectionist, and when I had some schoolwork
> > > to do, I was often restarting from scratch, throwing away all what
> > > I did before and looking for the perfect solution. Then, after
> > > having given back to the teacher several times blank sheets at the
> > > end of the allowed time (and having earned bad notes), I changed my
> > > attitude, and preferred to give partial answers in due time that no
> > > answer at all.
> >
> > The more *practical student slips his first (perfect) solution into the
> > desk. Then, after offering the teacher several 'improvements' and
> > 'experiments,' when the time comes due for final submissions, the
> > original is presented -- to great acclaim.
> >
> What movie is this? ;>)
>
> Regards
> Roberto
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