Brandon and all,
BrandonButterworth wrote:
> > > > > It is my position that "groups" should not have any voting role
> > > > > whatsoever in any part of ICANN or its SO's.
> >
> > I suppose that I agree with this. I just don't see it happening, that's all,
> > and I want to ameliorate the pernicious effects of group power as much as
> > possible.
>
> If it gets made into a big deal with governments etc. involved those
> attracted to power want to be in control.
Power is a very intoxicating drink to be user and should only be drank
by the reluctant, instead of those that "Like a the challange" as some on the
ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board have stated publicly. It is for this reason
that the White Paper precepts and principals of Stakeholder/user driven
ICANN must be embodied in an "All stakeholders/users are equal"
basis.
>
>
> > > You should look at the PSO proposal -- it gives 100% of the effective
> > > power [as measured by the ability to appoint the 3 board seats to ICANN's
> > > board] to the IETF as an organization.
> >
> > The IETF is afraid.
>
> Why shouldn't they be? What was a simple structure is becoming a set of large
> "corporations" making their own rules as they go.
This kind of fear is usually short lived and can be struck down as we
are seeing with Microsoft in the ongoing trial regarding Anti-Trust. What
the IETF is proposing with their PSO structure is one that is similar to
what Microsoft has become, which is as bad or worse. So, a balance
must be struck, and that balance is nicely outlined in the White Paper.
How that balance is constructed is where we are now and the real
trick.
> From the outside it
> appears to be a goldrush carve up of the pie. Once this sets we'll have
> a group of larger bodies resistant to any change that might affect
> their influence. That doesn't sound like an improvement.
Exactly right. WHich is why an all powerful BoD in the ICANN or
as it applies to SO's it directors. That control must reside in the hands
of the Stakeholder/user, not the BoD or the SO's directors. They should
serve as the instrument of the Stakeholder/user membership organization,
and control an provide for any and all policies that may be enacted or
standards that are to be considered good and normal practices. Anything
else would end up being divisive and disproportionate in one direction
or another.
>
>
> > They see everything changing and their own roles
> > diminishing in importance. But they'll come round. They must. They'll have
> > no choice, in the end. There are too many competent people out there ready
> > to replace them.
>
> There are plenty more incompetent people ready to try and rule the world
> (or any little patch they can grab). The competent will get diluted or
> displaced, all decisions become political or economic. I suspect that
> is what the IETF fears. May as well make Microsoft the PSO...
Again (See above my comments), what some corporations through
saragates in the ICANN and some forming SO's being considered
seem to be wanting to create a "Reverse-Microsoft PSO", and that will
not stand or serve the internet well.
>
>
> brandon
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
