All,
I thought that this thread was getting a bit far afield of the original
subject line, hence the change...
Now let's take Kents comments/Statements and the provisions of
the ICANN MoU with the NTIA one at time here... (See more below
inline)
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 04:32:37PM -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
> > >There are clearly other, higher, priorities. The White Paper, the
> > >Green Paper, the MoU with NTIA all quite clearly state that the
> > >stability of the Internet is the highest priority of all, etc.
> >
> > OK, granted. Now, please detail to me what ICANN is doing to ensure the
> > stability of the Internet?
>
> Making sure that the root server system doesn't collapse because of
> Y2K is the most vivid example, little noted here.
Of course this is indeed important. However I believe that at least
A.Root-Servers.net has been verified as Y2K compliant. Chuck,
is this not correct?
>
>
> Stability is only the highest of several priorities, in fact.
> Quoting from the MoU -- the actual document that defines ICANN's
> priorities:
>
> 1. Stability
>
> This Agreement promotes the stability of the Internet and allows
> the Parties to plan for a deliberate move from the existing
> structure to a private-sector structure without disruption to the
> functioning of the DNS.
Ok let's look at this sentance/statement closely, shall we?
The term, "The Parties" in this context I believe means any and all
STAKEHOLDERS, not just a cadre of SIG's.
> The Agreement calls for the design,
> development, and testing of a new management system that will not
> harm current functional operations.
This is pretty straight forward here. That agreement, is one that must be
agreed to by a MAJORITY of the stakeholders, not just a small cadre of
SIG's. Hence the need for a method of verifying that agreement, or
in other words a voting mechanism.
>
>
> 2. Competition
>
> This Agreement promotes the management of the DNS in a manner that
> will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer
> choice in the technical management of the DNS. This competition
> will lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and
> satisfaction.
This one the ICANN has only half addressed, and even at that without,
again the verifiable means of determining that "Consumer Choice".
This has been pointed out by the FACT that there has been resistance
from the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board to multiple REGISTRIES integrated
with the existing legacy root structure. Hence there is only some
competition,
questionably introduced, in the REGISTRAR segment only. This is also
in and of itself questionable in that the "Accreditation Agreement" was not
and still is NOT been agreed to by the "Consumer" or stakeholder to date.
>
>
> 3. Private, Bottom-Up Coordination
>
> This Agreement is intended to result in the design, development,
> and testing of a private coordinating process that is flexible and
> able to move rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of the
> Internet and of Internet users.
This requirement has also not even been adequately addressed
as stated here in this context, or any other context that is legitimate
to the degree of meeting this requirement. Hence the ICANN has been
unable or more accurately unwilling to address this requirement.
> This Agreement is intended to
> foster the development of a private sector management system that,
> as far as possible, reflects a system of bottom-up management.
Completely unaddressed by the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board at
this juncture.
>
>
> 4. Representation.
>
> This Agreement promotes the technical management of the DNS in a
> manner that reflects the global and functional diversity of
> Internet users and their needs.
This also has not been addressed, again for the same reasons, those
in part being that there has been not acceptance or acknowledgment
from the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board ins a mechanism for determining
weather the steakholder stands in any sense that is measurable.
> This Agreement is intended to
> promote the design, development, and testing of mechanisms to
> solicit public input, both domestic and international, into a
> private-sector decision making process. These mechanisms will
> promote the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the
> composition of the Internet user community and their needs.
Again not mechanism, for doing this that is needed, such as an online
voting procedure.
>
>
> Note that "representation" is the closest thing to the issue of
> elections, and it doesn't mention them specifically at all. This
> priority is the last listed (note: they *aren't* listed in
> alphabetical order), and that it is couched in terms of the "design,
> development, and testing of mechanisms". Actual implementation of
> those mechanisms is not even mentioned in these principles.
No but they are in context, implied.
>
>
> Note # 2 -- promotion of competition. That is precisely the point of
> the work concerning the NSI contract; the registrar accreditation
> guidelines; the matters concerning dispute resolution policies. It
> comes before "representation".
You can't have the former without the latter.
>
>
> Further down the document several specific tasks are mentioned.
> Number 8 is the relevant one:
>
> 8. Collaborate on the design, development, and testing of
> appropriate membership mechanisms that foster accountability to and
> representation of the global and functional diversity of the
> Internet and its users, within the structure of private- sector DNS
> management organization.
>
> The MoU is the document that most directly describes ICANNs mandate.
> It doesn't mention elections;
No but it implies that for Bottom-up management that some sort of
verification
and determination method or mechanism must be in place before these
functions can be adequately determined, and therefore this requirement met.
> it doesn't mention the garbage about
> the "interim vs initial" board; it doesn't mention grandiose internet
> governance goals; it doesn't mention individual representation.
> Instead it outlines a number of specific areas, and in fact ICANN is
> working exactly on those areas.
>
> To put it more succintly: ICANN is following its mandate very
> closely, and doing a damn good job under difficult circumstances
> with very limited resources.
I think I have now shown that this statement is grossly inaccurate...
However, this has been pointed out so many times by so many others
thus far is really belaboring the point entirely...
>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Regards
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
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
