Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Michael Froomkin wrote: > > > I think your questions fall under what they mean by "procedure" i.e. "not > > substance". Their view seems to be that procedural regularity is not a > > priority at this stage. I don't really understand why that's the view, > > and I don't share it, but it does seem to have persuaded some serious > > people (cf. Randy Bush's comments to me in the dnso discuss list). > > > Of course, from a strict "matter of principle" POV, you are absolutely right > (as most lawyers do ;>)). > The practical terms are, though, that while we discuss about principles and > procedures, Rome burns. Rome would never had burned had their process not been corrupted, this is a matter of historical fact and well documented record. > > > This whole fandango started from the continuous attempt to provide the > perfect answer to the wrong question. The initial need was the expansion of > the Domain Name Space and the transition to a competitive environment for > the domain name registration business. This is only one of the issues. You failed to mention IP addressing concerns in respect to IPv4, and the proper allocation procedures of those IP addresses... > Then new items were added to the > agenda, the need to fix something that was working (IANA) was put forward, > the US Government first participated to an effort (IAHC) then changed mind > (Why? Of course, this has nothing to do with lobbying?), and the initial > question remains still unanswered. Again as has been pointed out to you specifically many times in the past you still continue to see the situation with blinders on. > > > In the meantime, we are trying to give a solution to something that was not > a problem a couple of years ago, i.e. to define a perfect body that will > handle in a perfect way all Internet Governance issues. And, of course, > until this body is not perfect, no decision will be taken on anything else. This is a over dramatization on your part here as well Roberto. And yet again you still have yet to see this clearly. No one is seeking a perfect solution to a imperfect world, but rather one that is in accordance with the will of the stakeholders on the whole, not just a few "hobbyist" that wish to "Capture" the central resources of the Internet, most especially the DNS and the IP addressing system. > > > > -snip school time experiences - > > > Don't misunderstand me: I will do my best to make ICANN act in the best > possible way, but I cannot accept the solution of stopping everything and > stay put until everything will be perfect. No one is disagreeing with this Roberto. It is only your misperception that is getting in the way of clearer thinking... > > Such solution does not help the forces that are looking forward to a > progress of the Internet, but rather those who want the situation tot to > change of a bit. > > > In the law business, it long ago became conventional wisdom that > > 'procedure IS substance'. That is especially true in the formative stages > > of institutions. In my most optimistic moments I surmise that people from > > other disciplines are more short-term and bottom-line oriented, and this > > difference in professional socialization may account for some of the > > apparent disconnect. > > > Exactly. > > > One tries to stay optimistic. > > > Me too. > > Regards > Roberto 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
