Re: [IFWP] catch 22?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jeff and all,

  Very interesting and useful comments...  (See more of my responses below)

Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > I hope you are right.  But when I see the development of GAC and I do
> > not see esther and mike disown the gacsters I get very nervous.
>
> I think I may have a solution to that.  One political in nature.  I agree
> with you that GAC is a bit out of control and for governments sake must be
> restructured.  Some of the comments I heard at the GAC meeting were
> outrageous.  It's obvious tooney has little control in public
> presentation.

  Well... Tooney is loony, pardon the pun.  Rhymes though!  >;)
Fits also.

>
>
> The resources exist for public organization and complaint.  The yahoos in
> GAC - are civivl servants - they work for us - and ultimately our
> responsible to us throw our elected representatives.

  If you mean throw "Out" our representatives, the 2000 election is getting
ever closer.  My guess is that we will be seeing a flip flop of sorts,
where a we will have a Republican president and a Democrat controlled
House and Senate.  Poor All gore is a dud.  But of course, to hear him
tell it "I invented the internet", will be words that he may regret ever saying.

> I think it time
> these issues were raised in public newsgroups with invites to all to join
> the process.  At the same time people should be petitioned to contact and
> complain to their elected representatives.

  This is something that INEGroup folks have been doing on a regular basis,
including myself.

>
>
> If you don't like GAC - have it replaced.  If people are interested in
> this answer YES - and i'll collect your email addresses for organizing
> such an effort.

  YES!  Throw the bums out.  Take the current ICANN (Initial?) Interim
board members with them.

>
>
> > >I'm very concerned that alot of people
> > >are going to end up with egg on their faces and we should take every
> > >opportunity to avoid that.
> >
> > ????
>
> The old keep everyone happy theory.

  Yep!

>
>
> > >Jim, Esther, Mike and the remainder of the gang will not use whatever
> > >control they do have because the reprocussions would be fatal.  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.
> >
> > why would loosing the process be bad?  If you mean we'd get
> > alternative roots, I'd say hooray.  Are you familiar with einar
> > stefferud's point of view on this subject?  If not you should read
> > archieves of ORSC mailist from jan to march 99....from april on it
> > became rather defunct
>
> Would take some time to reorganize and we may end up with a worse problem.
> My associates are interested in following the path of least resistance to
> accomplish the goal.  If that process is not viable then we would be happy
> to consider another.
>
> One of our main concerns is that their are not enought people in the icann
> process.  As am example - the ga archives only contain some 120
> individuals.  Thats not enough people to rationalize a takeover of the
> dot.world.  Obviously we have to beef up the ranks, open some doors and
> bring in some ordinary folk to the party.

  Agreed.  But this is what the ICANN (Initial?) interim "Outreach" program
was originally supposed to do, but once they spent all their money on Mike
Roberts and Joe Sim's legal expenses, plus lavish hotels in their global
"Fly-in's" for nearly worthless Face-to-Face meetings, than maybe there would
be allot more active participation.

>
>
> > >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.
> >
> > absolutely true
>
> Thank you for your support.  Your the only individual who has addressed
> this part of my statement, which I think is the most important goal to
> accomplish.

  This point has been discussed several times before you came on the
scene.

>
>
> > >But before we do that, the quality of the discussion in these conferences
> > >must improve.  ICANN's survival depends on it.
> >
> > I have been with you up to this point ...here you loose me.  ICANN
> > acts with such disgusting arrogance that I cannot understand why
> > anyone would want to save it.
>
> I agree, there is considerable arrogance on icanns part via some
> representatives.  And I anticipate that will improve if more people are
> involved.  There will be more reason for caution on their part - and
> caution breeds openess and resposiveness.

  Well my experience is that caution does not bread openness or
responsiveness.

>
>
> And if that does not work, then we can can icann and move on to the next
> step.  But in that case, the DNS revolution would proceed with a wide base
> of support.  At this time it looks to us more like a small war that's well
> balanced in scale.  in other words - it's been going on for so long - it's
> become tradition.
>
> Regards
> Jeff Mason
>
> --
> Planet Communication & Computing Facility           pccf@bigbird.earth-net.net
> Public Access Internet Research Publisher           1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033

Regards,

--
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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208