Could someone please forward this
to the ISOC Membership list. My
posting was refused. Thanks,
Jay.
At 12:44 PM 6/18/99 , I wrote:
>
>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/
>
