I can't help but chime in that if all the models fail, it may be because the
"political powers" are not really turning the project loose to "all
interested parties" to work out a solution. In each case, the failure is
due to that fact IMHO. Thank you.
Ray Hallman
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 1:30 PM
Subject: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical
rolein enabling ICANN
> Ellen Rony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Mr, Farber. There is room here for a different cause/effect analysis. I
> > posit that if ICANN fails, it will be an indicator that the ICANN
*model*
> > was not workable, NOT that the Net cannot manage itself. The model that
is
> > the source of so much controversy is one that began with several
insiders
> > hand-picking a group of supposed DNS newbies who were, in turn,
secretive,
> > clueless and easily swayed.
>
> The danger, IMHO, is that if the models continue to fail (IAHC, gTLD-MoU,
> ICANN, etc), the entities who are overseeing the process (governments)
> may tire of it and intervene directly. As I've said before, their agenda
> of late has not been particularly friendly to the small business or
> individual. Something like the DNRC would have much less chance of
> getting its concerns addressed.
>
> > ICANN arrived on the DNS scene as a stillborn puppy. This is why your
> > assertion that "we must make it work" falls on deaf ears. Sorry, but
that
> > dog won't hunt.
>
> In all fairness, ICANN must cooperate in making it work also.
>
> --gregbo
>
>
