Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical rolein enabling ICANN
Richard, Ellen and all, As Ellen indicates, and I think correctly, governments can intervene at nearly any juncture in any effort of self regulation and influence or force their will upon the process. The GAC was set up primarily by the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board to circumvent this possibility to some extent. It appears that the GAC's efforts are less than adequately successful thus far. We are now seeing more and more government direct involvement in regulation of the Internet, which many of us all feared or did not want. This is especially true in the EU, and will be even more true in the orient in the very near future I believe. Where does this leave the ICANN and its sibling the GAC? I don't really know at this juncture. I doubt that anyone can predict this with any degree of certainty. But it is becoming VERY clear that this current ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board has lost much of it's appeal or luster amongst governments for many obvious reasons that have been stated over and over again by many and this continues to grow. Richard J. Sexton wrote: > At 10:30 AM 9/11/99 -0700, you wrote: > >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. > > If the Internet was all in one country you might have a problem. > > But you don't, really. > > -- > "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare 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
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical rolein enabling ICANN
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 > >
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical rolein enabling ICANN
At 10:30 AM 9/11/99 -0700, you wrote: >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. If the Internet was all in one country you might have a problem. But you don't, really. -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
[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
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical rolein enabling ICANN
Gordon, My only comment is I wish the "unindicted conspirators" were as devious and organized as you claim. My experience is that they were not and still are not. I just don't believe that the ICANN Board (nor did the ITAG or the ISOC Board) meets in private to plot the takeover of the internet as I never saw or heard or attended any such meetings and I have rather good spies. People were trying hard to find solutions to difficult problems in a rapidly changing and complicated world -- it is hard. Maybe we/they were/are incompetent at laying out a good course but it was not for trying. I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We must make it work. MY OPINION, Dave
