BUT, in the mean time it may all well become a moot point. Progress
will not wait for ICANN to get it's act together. This issues to be
addressed today will be addressed, and not wait until ICANN gets going
in 12-18 months.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Weisberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 1:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Look at the known facts, not FCN.
Bob Allisat wrote:
> My experience with FCN has been most
> illuminating.
Why is FCN equivalent to ICANN for the purpose of projecting
membership? Is the traffic to a candy store in the mall
relevant in projecting the number of parking spaces I will
need at my law office?
> We opened the door to our
> free Domain Name Registration Service
> and Internet Democracy site about a
> year and a half ago.
That does not sound like DNS, IP and protocol policy
formulation to me.
> ...we have recieved wide and growing interest Why?
> ...I think the answer is in the organization
> and intent of FCN. We host an open door.
So did/does the IFWP, dom-pol, com-priv, apnic, orsc, etc.
> In spirit as well as implimentation. In
> our current connundrum we <IFWP?> try real hard
> to be open and yet always fall short,
> tumbling into the same circle of players,
> each pursuing their own well-worn agendas.
Not because of designed exclusion, but lack of interest. I,
personally, announced the White Paper and IFWP processes to
various lists and groups. You do not need a computer to
measure the response.
> I would say a new start is required under
> quite new leadership.
Raise that issue with the NTIA and Congress. That is not
the question, here. Rather, we are discussing what THIS
leadership should do. What presumptions should it apply in
designing a membership structure? What do you suggest in
that regard? Why?
