Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Richard,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > I've seen some pretty negative commetns about ICANN from RIPE, and the
> > IETF does what the IAB tells it to; individually, each IETF member I've
> > asked
> > disapproved vehemently of ICANN.
> >
> I have discussed a lot of this subject with IETF people at the IETF meetings
> since the issue came up (Chicago + Orlando), and I have a completely
> different perspective.
> Of course, you can always suppose that they tell to me what the IAB wants
> them to tell, and tell the truth to you, but I imagine that it will be
> stretching it a little bit too far ;>)
> I also wonder who elected the IAB, if everybody disagrees with what they say
> and do ;>)
No one elects members of the IAB they are selected.
>
>
> > If ICANN has so much support, where is it ?
> >
> A couple of examples.
>
> At the ICANN meeting in Brussels, Nov. 25, the general message was of
> support to ICANN.
THis is patently untrue Roberto as the news reports that have already been
posted to this and the IFWP list have already shown as well as individual
reports form those that attended.
>
> The main point of disagreement with ICANN was ... their attitute to take
> seriously the BWG + ORSC (which are virtually unknown in Europe), and the
> risk of losing the support of the Europeans if they continue on this path.
Most of europe especially those of the ISPA are very strongly opposed
to the ICANN and have stated so publicly.
>
>
> In this respect, you can see that the atmosphere was completely different
> from the one in Boston.
No it wasn't at all. Get real!
>
> In fact, the European are much more concerned with the inactivity of ICANN
> (i.e. the kack of clear decisions and indications) than with the openness. I
> have the impression that over here we would prefer a decision behind closed
> doors than no decision in the open. But this is my perception of the
> situation (and not at all my personal opinion).
>
> Another example is to take all comments at
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/comments/comments.html
> , eliminate the duplicates, and count. Also, you will find that strong
> statements of criticism come mainly from individuals that are also active on
> the lists you mentioned in earlier messages, while statements from support
> come mainly from organizations, that are also less active on mailing lists.
I represent a very large organization 85,000 strong and we are completely
against the ICANN. So this statement doesn't ring true either. I even posted
our last month report that clearly shows the strength of the opposition
to the ICANN.
>
>
> This explains the different perception of people that base their evaluation
> on mailing lists, and people that base their perceptions on other forms of
> communication.
Again you are being evasive and inaccurate. However you seem to have a
propensity for this kind of dialog.
>
>
> The point I was making at the beginning of these threads is that USG will
> listen to the mailing lists, and be aware of the criticism, but will also
> listen to other type of messages, and be aware of the support. They will not
> disregard either piece of communication.
OF course not. This is their job. But to list just a few organizations that
have
come out publicly against ICANN are as follows:
INEGroup
ORSC
BWG
IAB
IETF
several groups within ICC see www.icc.org
ISPC
ISPA
DRMC
Deltanet Corp
AOL Independant membership org.
>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
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
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
