Hi Vint,
What is your role in this ICANN fiasco?
By your comments below, you seem to be
a part of the problem, not a part of the
solution.
While I agree that the White Paper can be
confusing, the history of ICANN and its Board
is very clear -- the terms "initial" and
"interim" are *not* interchangeable!
If you have forgotten this history, please
see my recent response to Joe Sims.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:04:14 -0400
From: vinton g. cerf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ISOC Members Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ISOC Members Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The DNSO names council meeting, June 25th, San Jose
Sam,
the language of the White Paper is what creates the confusion
about "initial" and "interim" as both terms are used. I believe
it to be the case that the intent was that these terms be
understood to be interchangeable and that they meant "interim"
in the sense that a priority of the board was to get ICANN set
up and to prepare to replace the interim board with one elected
by a process agreed by the interested parties.
I don't think anyone, especially Esther, is trying to play any
word games with these terms.
Vint
At 08:43 AM 6/18/99 -0400, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>Don Health has observed at various times in this process that that the
>creation of a functional ICANN and DNSO council are both important and a
>test of our ability to build cooperative, transparent, responsible and
>responsive organizations of this sort. I could not agree more.
>
>However, the DNSO names council meeting scheduled for the 25th should face
>up to the fact that parts of the process are mired in the mud and shrouded
>in smoke and fog. I refer, in particulr, to the non-commercial names
>domain holders part of the process. The part that is what the internet
>used to be before its opening to the commercial sector.
>
>There are other foggy parts. In the question of whether the BoD sees
>itself as an interim board or an initial board Don has said "> Nothing has
>changed.". Since exactly what was is unclear, what is remains unclear.
>
>What is also disturbing is that the process seems not to be able to simply
>say "In response to a reasonable question, the answer is: The BoD is
>operating as an interim board" (or initial board). There is a big
>difference. One sets up processes so that policy decisions can be properly
>carried out. The other (initial BoD) makes policy decisions.
>
>Don is right. If we do this well, it serves as an example to others -
>while serving us well. If we do this poorly, the results will not go away.
>Nothing will be settled no matter what an interim (or initial) BoD
>decides. There will be no long run way to enforce bad policy short of
>calling out NATO - which would only work in the short run.
>
>My fear is that the BoD, mired in the mud, smoke and the fog, will simply
>dismiss the circumstances as the result of malcontents or those with
>hidden agendas (as alluded to). They will press their foot on the gas
>peddle and try to speed forward thinking they are right in their actions.
>The end result will be a flawed process and a flawed outcome. That outcome
>will neither stand the test of time, nor will it produce a process that
>works for future policy, much less a process that can be held up as an
>example to others. It will discredit the process - and there are those
>suspecting hidden agendas there as well.
>
>At the bottom line, the DNSO process is about governance, not about
>technology. There are competing models of governance, models which
>compete with regard to the degrees of centralized, federated, and
>decentralized structure, and compete with regard to how the various
>constituencies particiate. The process is about making wise choices.
>
>It does not appear that this is clear to those driving the process forward
>at the moment. As a result, some groups - in particular those in the
>non-commercial domain name holder sector to which I belong - have been
>pushed to wonder about motives. This is prompted counter-charges about
>motives and produced a second mud-pit of cross-charges. This second
>mud-pit should not be allowed to distract us from the primary task here.
>
>That primary task is an interim board which produces interim decisions
>(which are needed) and a (due) process which allows the representatives of
>the council to carry the decision making process forward - including
>revising the interim decisions of the interim board, working with an
>accountable initial board.
>
>If we miss this point no amount of pressing on the gas peddle will save us
>from a flawed outcome, and it will leave ICANN with a burned out
>transmission.
>
>ICANN will become ICAN'T
>
>Sam Lanfranco
>Bellanet & Distributed Knowledge
>
=================================================================
"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!"
Join the Internet Society and help to make it so.
See you at INET'99, San Jose, CA, June 22-25,1999
http://www.isoc.org/inet99/
