>Gordon -
>
>As usual, there are some grains of truth here, of course: the trademark
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>interests have a lot of money.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cook: Yes indeed they do. One of the problems of ICANN, if I may be
allowed an observation or two, is that we have yet to see anything like an
ICANN business plan. Except for what the GIP collects and gives to ICANN,
we don't know how it will be funded. We do know that it CERTAINLY does need
MONEY. All of which would lead those of us not privvy to the discussions
of you, Mike Roberts and the rest of the initial board members to suspect
that the trade mark interests can and likely *ARE* using their money to buy
favorable treatment. This should not surprise anyone. With most lobbying
organizations inside the beltway, its standard operating procedure.
But Esther, this *IS* the *INTERNET* which operates a bit differently as
you should well know by now. On the *INTERNET* you may try standard
operating procedures as ICANN has been doing. While you will find that
deals can be made behind closed doors, you will also find that doing so
will subject all parties to embarassment.
>And we (the Initial Board of ICANN) hope that various groups will come
>together into a consensus DNSO proposal.
>
We know all about this need and hope that you will actively help us do it.
Those of us not privileged to be at your level of operation *HOPE* that you
will recognize that ICANN needs to become OPEN in its style of operation.
What have you to loose by trying diplomacy?
>HOWEVER, you and I both know that there is no such thing as "a few ICANN
>members." ICANN does not have members yet.
>
>Now if this person (already showing him/herself to be unreliable with this
>mistake) was actually referring to Initial Board members, then this still
>cannot be true, because recognition of an SO is a Board decision, something
>that cannot be promised by any individuals.
De jure, I suppose that you are correct. De facto I'll wager that Mike
Roberts has been running around behind the scenes putting deals together.
I suspect that what is outlined in the "rumor" is in fact an attempt at a
Roberts brokered deal.
>What other people or groups may
>or may not be planning or intending or why they do things I don't know, but
>please rest assured that the Board has made no decisions,
Yeah, I believe you in the sense that I believe the function of the board
is to give public approval to what you and Mike broker in private.
Sorry.... :-(
After all with the knowledge of the board about the internet being minimal,
some of us are concerned that it tends to approve what Roberts suggests to
it that it should approve.
>and that I
>personally I am still simply watching with interest to see what comes out of
>the discussions now proceeding.
Esther, you as board chair cannot be simply watching. you must be leading.
As board chair....what ever happens... happens under your leadership.
>
>Esther
>
>At 02:36 AM 07/01/99 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>hello mike and esther:
>>
>>What follows came to my attention tonight. I realize that until it is
>>second and maybe even third sourced it is just a rumor.
>>
>>Is it?
>>
>>I am sure you would like to be able to come back and assure all of us that
>>this "disturbing news" paragraph below is just totally false.
>>
>>can you do that?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------- Forwarded Message
>>
>>From: anonymous
>>Subject: Disturbing news
>>
>>I just finished speaking to someone who knows what's going on.
>>Confidentially, he told me that the dnso.org group has taken the
>>trademark people in for 2 reasons.
>>
>>First, they add legitimacy to the dnso.org application. They also
>>have made claims that they have big companies and a lot of money
>>behind them, and they've already spoken with a few ICANN members who
>>are telling them that the dnso.org application will be approved.
>>
>>Secondly, their intention is to get as many of their people on the
>>'names council' as possible, and then pass a resolution that no new
>>TLDs shall be added until the WIPO study is complete. After that
>>delay, they intend to start slowly, introducing one TLD at a time,
>>starting with CORE, and passing a resolution that the 60-day wait be
>>reinstated. CORE has already agreed to this.
>>
>>My source tells me that this is already a done deal, and that the big
>>money and big companies behind it won't allow anything else to happen.
>>
>>... From a concerned party ...
>>
>>------- End of Forwarded Message
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet What Happened to the White Paper?
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ICANN a Sham. (updated 10/25/98) See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/whorules.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
