Brock and all Brock, hummm? ok... I would have thought that you had a copy some time long before. Not doubting you, just would have though so is all... Thanks for the answer... >;) Meeks, Brock wrote: > The e-mail from Simms was revealed during Thursday's hearing. I got it when > a staffer handed it out to the press at that time. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 5:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meeks, Brock; > IDNO; Joe (Virus leaden Web Page expert) Simms > Subject: Re: [IFWP] ICANN teams with DOJ against Commerce and NSI - Rutt > Better form Alernative Root > > Gordon, Brock, and all, > > Thank you Gordon for sharing this with us. It seems to me though > that this should have been released some time ago if possible. > Don't you think? Others? > > Brock, How long have you had a copy of this E-Mail form Mr. Sims? > > There is much in this letter that explains much that has occurred sense > March, when this letter was exchanged. It also points up some interesting > information that I had been getting through other DOJ sources as well. > > Gordon Cook wrote: > > > Given today's events, Jim Rutt better announce the formation of a > > Global Open Registry Association and solicit the 224 country code > > TLDs to join the Registry Association before the GAC makes them > > obsolete. The Registry Association better also form its own > > independent Root and invite the 224 country codes to enter that root. > > The Association should then announce that any new registry paying a > > reasonable performance bond can join and place its new TLDs in the > > Global Open Registry Association Root. > > > > Rutt, in his testimony, said "ICANN has, unfortunately, refused to > > negotiate [. . . ] and has insisted, instead, that we accept their > > "accreditation agreement," which would require NSI to give ICANN the > > unilateral right to terminate our business with 15 days notice and > > take over the ownership of our intellectual property, substituting > > the unaccountable judgments of ICANN's unelected board for those of > > an NSI Board which owes fiduciary duties to some 20,000 investors and > > five million registrants." > > > > Rather than negotiate in good faith with Rutt, ICANN prepared for the > > hearing by sending a copy of the March 31 1999 Joe Sims message below > > to committee staff who, according to Brock Meeks, released it at the > > hearing. It shows clearly that it is time for Rutt to fight or die. > > We thank Brock for sending it and giving us permission to disseminate > > it. > > > > From: "Meeks, Brock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: sims email > > Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:30:04 -0700 > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > > The following e-mail was released during today's congressional hearing on > > ICANN. > > > > It's dated March 31, 1999 from Joe Sims to "Chair, JDICANN" and the > subject > > is "t/c's" which I take to mean "teleconferences" (phone calls). The > > e-mail, which was not refuted by Sims, speaks for itself. > > > > 1. I spoke today with Chris Kelly, who is the DOJ senior person > focused > > on NSI/ICANN issues. The thrust of the conversation was our mutual > > frustration with the lack of aggressiveness of DOC. Chris explained that, > > so long as the Cooperative Agreement was in place, the antitrust options > > were limited, which I of course understood, but said DOJ was encouraging > DOC > > to push harder--and in fact had assigned DOC some economists to help with > > the price cap issues. I suggested that one thing DOJ could do is increase > > the level of pressure on DOC, by some form of formal communication or a > > higher-level contact; Chris said that was already under consideration. He > > also indicated that, while there may have been some legitimate basis of > > concern that a fight with NSI 6 months ago could destabilize the net, he > > thought that was less likely today, and that it would be useful for DOC to > > hear from significant organizations that they were perfectly willing and > > capable of stepping into NSI's shoes with little difficulty, [and] > > assuming access > > to the root files. This led to a discussion on how desirable it would be > to > > get control of the root away from NSI, so that if necessary that transfer > > could be made. > > > > 2. A while later, Mark Bohannon called to set up a t/c with Andy > Pincus > > [DOC Attorney] for tomorrow. As it turned out, we ended up having > > the t/c today. > > Pincus wanted to know from the horse's mouth what ICANN's view was of this > NSI > > contract. I told him that we did not need a contract with NSI as registry > > at the moment, and that the recent discussions were all generated by NSI > > and/or Becky. What we wanted to now was to complete the registrar > process, > > which required action by DOC; to accredit the test bed and accredit > > non-test bed > > registrars now; I told him we were doing to give priority to test bed > > applicants, but after that, we planned to process accreditation > applications > > as fast as we could, and we did not plan to wait until some artificial > time > > to announce open accreditations. Bohannon then asked if we were still in > > agreement that NSI did not have to accredited to participate in the test > > bed; I said that was a point of some controversy, and I didn't know where > we > > stood on that officially; he said that if we changed our position on that > > and said NSI had to be accredited to participate in the test bed, that > would > > be a big problem. I then told them that ICANN was getting impatient, and > > that while we would not do anything without checking with them and would > not > > do anything at all for the next day or so, we were likely to become more > > publicly critical in the near future (a point I had also made with DOJ). > > There was a little back and forth about us working together and the call > > ended. > > > > The combination of these two calls gives me some hope that there might be > > some progress. I am encouraged that DOJ appears to be as impatient as we > > are, and I think we should steadily keep up and increase pressure on DOC. > > One way to do that is to start pushing on the root issues, where we have > not > > pushed yet. We should think about whether there is an easy and obviously > > acceptable place to put A root server, and maybe start pushing to have > that > > done. > > > > **************************************************************** > > The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK > Report > > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com > > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's Behind ICANN and How it Will > > Impact the Future of the Internet > http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml > > **************************************************************** > > 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 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
