Karl and all, I think most of us know that Kent has a tendency to jump the gun or provide his own spin on just about anything that is not necessarily completely in ICANN's favor. This example not withstanding of course... Thank you for clarifying the specifics on the GAO report for us all here. I am sure it is much appreciated by many. Karl Auerbach wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Kent Crispin wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 12:41:15PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > The GAO report is out > > > > > > www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf > > > > > > Nothing earthshaking except that the Dept. of Commerce indicates that > > > it has no intention of letting go of the ICANN root of the DNS. > > > > > > (The report doesn't reconcile that with its oft-repeated statement that > > > the NTIA/DoC contract with ICANN will end either on Sept 30 [or be > > > extended, but will still end at some time afterwords.]) > > > > I'm rather surprised that you say "nothing earthshaking", given your > > longstanding negativity concerning the legal basis for ICANN. > > You certainly do have a penchant for not reading things well. > > To quote the report > > The Department [of Commerce] has no specific statutory obligations > to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative > root server. > > and > > It is unclear whether the Department has the authority to transfer control > of the authoritative root server to ICANN. > > The reason the report didn't inquire further is that DoC said it would > retain control of the ICANN franchise root system, thus reducing ICANN to > nothing more than a private advisory group with no actual authority or > decisionmaking power. (It will be interesting to see what happens if DoC > simply blindly follows ICANN's choices and thus makes it apparent that the > DoC is simply abrogating the authority that it told the GAO that the DoC > would retain.) > > > The GAO report is a resounding affirmation of the properness of > > everything that NTIA and ICANN have done. > > Balderdash, it is no such thing. I suggest that you actually read it. It > is a very limited document that did not go beyond the limited scope of the > questions presented to it. > > > GAO found *no* problems with the legal basis > > for ICANN > > That was not one of the questions before the GAO. The report *did* find > that there was no statutory authority for what NTIA has done except for > the ability of NTIA to enter into contracts and attend meetings. > > > or for NTIA's actions, or in the actions concerning the > > formation of ICANN, or in the method that the directors were chosen > > Again, you have failed to read. Your weekend assignment is to actually > read the report. > > > or with anything about how ICANN has conducted itself. > > Again that wasn't among the questions that the GAO was asked to answer. > > Left entirely unanswered, for example, is whether the APA will apply now > that the DoC has made it clear that changes to the ICANN franchise root > will be the result of NTIA decisions, not of ICANN decisions. > > > ... despite the fact that you and a number of > > prominent ICANN critics were listed as "experts"... > > You must be jealous. > > --karl-- Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph# Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
