Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
>> But the fighting existed even back in the IAHC days.
>Not the fighting over ICANN.
The point I was trying to make is that you can subsitute IAHC or Jon
Postel for ICANN and you get the same result.
>ICANN is supposed to provide a legal basis for IANA, a framework in
>which that work can be continued. It was supposed to be a solution.
>Unfortunately ICANN was selected by a secret process. Unfortunately
>the ICANN board has chosen to keep its deliberations secret. And so
>ICANN has simply became part of the problem.
Was ICANN selected by a secret process? From what I recall reading
some time back, several ICANN interim board members indicated they
were contacted by either Mike Roberts or Jon Postel and asked to
serve.
Now if your question is "what grounds did Mike Roberts or Jon
Postel have to make that determination?" that is certainly arguable.
However, because of their long history with the Internet, and the
trust and respect they have built up with officials of governments,
telecommunications organizations, researchers, etc, I'm not surprised
they would be able to draw others to their cause.
However, I do agree that ICANN needs to be more open. The suggestions
Dave Farber and Ellen Rony recently made would be a good start, imho.
--gregbo
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
