Dave, if you actually read this list why don't you
spend a moment and go to http://lists.ifwp.org and
subscribe to it. You were unsubscribed when
mail to you bounced ad while I don't mind
hand-holding newbies I figure you should
be able to do this yourself.
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 8 14:08:59 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from mail1.via.net (mail1.via.net [209.81.9.12])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5693F01B
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:08:57 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from joe@localhost
> by mail1.via.net (8.9.3/8.9.3)
> id <LAA12175-joe>;
> Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
>X-UIDL: 602e7f75a274593fef8f0f5fe739fabb
>Received: from lists.psi.com [38.9.21.2] (HELO lists.psi.com)
> by mail1.via.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) via ESMTP
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from psi.com (relay1.mail.herndon.psi.com [38.146.107.12])
> by lists.psi.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
> ID# 0-58542U20L100S0V35) with ESMTP id com
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:09:44 -0400
>Received: from gw1.mail.herndon.psi.com by psi.com (8.8.5/SMI-5.4-PSI-R1H)
> id CAA10489; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:09:43 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from postman.bayarea.net by gw1.mail.herndon.psi.com (8.8.5/SMI-5.4-PSI)
> id CAA13955; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:09:41 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from dave-vaio (free.88.106.bayarea.net [205.219.88.106])
> by postman.bayarea.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02581;
> Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.56 (Beta)
>Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 23:08:59 -0700
>To: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <v04020a15b3a3253af8a9@[192.168.0.1]>
>References: <1135288085CAD111AADE00A0C9A93E500FFAEC@SU-SERVER>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by psi.com id CAA10489
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail1.via.net id XAA28032
>Status: U
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>At 10:59 PM 7/2/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>uh mr. farmer before you make a fool of yourself with your inane
>>pontifications you ought to spend a few minutes following what you claim
>
>It might be worth being very judicious where you direct the label
>'pontification', Gordon...
>
>>GAC's Considerings:
>>
>>1. The Internet naming and addressing system is a public resource that must
>>be managed in the interests of the global Internet community;
>>
>>The "naming and addressing system" is NOT a "public resource. The
>> language is straight out of the gTLD-MoU. It is a clear unconstitutional
>> taking of private property.
>
>After all this time, it is surprising and encouraging to discover that you
>know more about international law -- never mind more about Internet
>technology and operations principals -- than the other experts working on
>this task.
>
>(And by the way, a guilt-by-association reference to the gtld-mou hardly
>counts as substantive criticism of the current work. Surely you can do
>better than that!)
>
>>2. The management of Internet names and addresses must be facilitated by
>>organizations that are global in character.
>>
>>It's not clear why all Internet names and addresses "must be"
>> so facilitated.
>
>Again, your advanced expertise in basic Internet technical principals is
>showing.
>
>In any event, to those who DO have training in Internet technical
>principals, they know that barbarization of naming and/or addressing will
>quite simply eliminate the communications utility of the net, as well as
>violating some end-to-end technical architecture requirements -- but that's
>already a problem due to NATs.
>
>>... 4. Country code top level domains are operated in trust by the Registry
>>for the public interest, including the interest of the Internet community,
>>on behalf of the relevant public authorities including governments, who
>>ultimately have public policy authority over their ccTLDs, consistent with
>>universal connectivity of the Internet.
>>
>>By what authority do they acquire such "public policy authority?"
>
>Somewhere in the vicinity of 10 years of established practise.
>
>But what the heck, law doesn't care about established practise, does it?
>
>>Principle 2 The GAC shall provide advice and communicate issues and views
>>to the ICANN Board.
>>
>>Intergovernmental bodies don't just provide advice. Their
>> findings and agreements have substantial force and effect -
>
>You are, of course, free to re-interpret plain language in any manner you
>want, but you really do yourself a disservice by not taking proper credit
>for the semantic (never mind political) creativity you contribute to the
>interpretation of that plain language.
>
>> of Incorporation that it "...shall carry out its activities in
>> conformity with relevant principles of international law and
>> applicable international conventions," effectively gives the GAC
>
>Oh my god. I entirely missed that one, Gordon. Thank you SO much.
>
>Why, it is simply unconscionable that ICANN should actually have to operate
>within the confines of applicable law. We better fix this, FAST!
>
>>Principle 11 In addition to face-to-face meetings, discussions may be
>>conducted online via secure communications.
>>
>>So why do they need "secure online communications" for discussions?
>
>Well, for one possible reason, to avoid giving you more informal, second
>hand material to distort.
>
>>Principle 14 Members of the GAC shall be national governments,
>>multinational governmental organizations and treaty organizations, and
>>public authorities, each of which may appoint one representative to the GAC
>>
>>
>>Notice the wording. Members of the GAC are not individuals, but
>> the governments and intergovernmental organizations themselves.
>> By what lawful mechanism are governments constituting the GAC?
>
>Wow. Now that really IS serious. A "governmental" advisory body actually
>is restricted to having participation only by representatives of
>governments! How could anyone allow this to happen???
>
>>Principle 16 Governments or organizations not having a representative to
>>the GAC may nominate an accredited government/organizational representative
>>to represent its Membership on the GAC.
>>
>>This will allow some governments to acquire potentially enormous
>> power. You could have the ITU representative potentially having
>> proxies from a hundred countries. It opens all kind of mischief.
>
>Sure does. I mean, after all, all that ADVICE might actually be coherent!
>
>>Principle 19 If a Members accredited representative is not present at a
>>meeting, then it shall be taken that the Member government or organisation
>>is not represented at that meeting. Any decision made by the GAC without
>>the participation of a Memberís accredited representative shall stand and
>>nonetheless be valid.
>>
>>Is this typical of a body merely providing "advice?"
>
>Indeed you have found another subversive opportunity. The idea that a
>group would be permitted to operate with the work of those who show up,
>rather than always having to wait for perfect attendance is indeed an
>insidious violation (of some sort.)
>
>>Principle 20 In consideration of the GACís commitment to efficiency, there
>>shall be no attendance or voting by proxy. Members may only be represented
>>at meetings, both face-to-face and electronic, by their accredited
>>representative.
>>
>>This will further encourage proxy gathering.
>
>How does an explicit rule against proxies encourage proxies?
>
>
>
>The rest of your note was equally enlightening, Gordon. As always, your
>impressively creative interpretations are most appreciated.
>
>d/
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
>Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
>675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
