Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> The Key Issue, which Mr. Zittrain also misses here is the necessary
> distinction between NSI and its REgistrars becoming "regulated"
> because NSI is a recognized Moopoly which just happens to be the
> result of a nasty Market Structure Failure (caused by a lack of proper
> USGovt Oversight of IANA and NSI) which remains in ofrce to limit
> gTLDs to only 3 that are open to the public (.com, .org, .net).
>
> It is very clear, after just a little thinking, that all the other
> TLDs (ccTLDs and prospective would be gTLDs) are not monopolies that
> need the regulatory cure being applied to NSI and the NSI Registrars.
True in essence or on the surface anyway. However some would view
ccTLD's as potential monopoly TLD's that would pose a potential threat
to an gTLD if they are considered a "Regulatory Free Zone". Quite
a conundrum!
>
>
> So, why is ICANN setting policy for all TLD registries and Registrars,
> Internet Wide? And why are you jsutifying the doing of this based on
> the fact of NSI being a monopoly and under regulatory control of NTIA.
You first question here is certainly a good one and seems as though the
ICANN wishes to, without membership approval and in violation of their
own Bylaws/MoU agreement with the NTIA setting the framework by which
only a limited policy direction can be taken. We (INEGroup) fine this
both offensive and in violation of the White Paper as well as potentially
a Anti-Trust situation that should be corrected before it becomes a
live legal situation.
In our rescheduled meeting in Dallas on Feb 23rd thru the 26th these issues
will be voting items and ones that need resolution or at least a good idea
of where the Stakeholders are at with this potential problem.
>
>
> And, why is ICANN stting NTIA policy for all TLds and they Registrars?
> Is ICANN actually a CARTEL, with the power to set criteria and rules
> for all DNS Registrars in tyhe Internet?
It appears from the latest statements and the ICANN web page that
the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board believes that it can act independantly
without the stakeholders approval. An here again it appears that the ICANN
"INitial" and Interim Board is attempting to create a direction independant of
the Stakeholders desires, needs or wishes, as they are yet to be widely
known.
>
>
> If ICANN doe snt make this claim, then I think it is critical that
> ICANN say so and relieve us of our nigtmare concerns.
It is doubtful that any definitive statement will be forthcoming form
the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board in this regard Stef.
>
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> >From your message Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:18:41 -0500:
> }
> }For what it's worth, ICANN's been pretty clear from the start that the
> }initial board would be doing policy, too--this from the Nov. 14 meeting
> }(I'd been thinking of "interim" and "initial" as interchangeable before this):
> }
> }http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/archive/transmembership.html
> }
> } 3 MR. ZITTRAIN: Well, if I may, I think
> } 4 you're making at least two points. One is, and it
> } 5 was made earlier, you have to know what the
> } 6 organization as a whole is doing before you can
> } 7 actually define how the membership would play a
> } 8 role in it. And secondly, more specifically, to
> } 9 the extent that what it's doing is operational and
> } 10 those are the decisions that require
> } 11 accountability, you want to even say is it the
> } 12 Board doing it, is it people appointed by the
> } 13 Board, is it the president or people under --
> } 14 MR. CLARK: Right, I was just stressing
> } 15 the second question, you know, that -- I'm -- the
> } 16 question of how the Board is selected has a lot to
> } 17 do with what -- the role they play versus the
> } 18 subsidiary organizations and so forth and so on.
> } 19 MR. ZITTRAIN: Yeah.
> } 20 MS. DYSON: Yeah. Well, with -- yeah,
> } 21 not everything is clear, but clearly we are more
> } 22 than -- we will be making policy decisions; Mike
> } 23 Roberts will be -- and his successor, as a more
> } 24 permanent president, will be carrying out the
> } O'BRIEN & LEVINE COURT REPORTING SERVICES
> } 130
> } 1 operational side of the business and making things
> } 2 run and so forth and so on. So it really is a
> } 3 combination. But we're an -- we are an initial
> } 4 Board right now. That's why we're called initial.
> } 5 It wasn't actually interim. And one reason we're
> } 6 an initial Board is because we are initiating a
> } 7 lot of these policies about how we are governed
> } 8 going forward. So especially this initial Board
> } 9 is very much concerned with defining exactly what
> } 10 we're talking about here: Membership,
> } 11 accountability, procedures, the structure of the
> } 12 supporting organizations and so forth.
> }
> }Given the aggressive timetable established between the USG and NSI for
> }running the testbed on multiple registrar registrations, and the
> }expectation in that agreement that ICANN would establish accreditation
> }guidelines, it doesn't seem off base to publish draft guidelines without a
> }DNSO yet in place, no? Or is this an argument for the speedier recognition
> }of a DNSO to keep pace with these developments? ...JZ
> }
> }At 04:20 PM 2/14/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
> }>At 2/10/99, 11:35 PM, Dean Robb wrote:
> }>>>We have heard "It's just temporary" over and over again, used to silence
> }>>>fears and criticism. If the bylaws didn't stipulate that the ICANN Interim
> }>>>Board was just temporary, and that they wouldn't make policy decisions, who
> }>>>among us would have accepted their "temporary" approval by the NTIA?
> }>>
> }>>I seem to recall that in international politics, many a "temporary"
> }>>violation of agreements was later renamed "fait accompli".
> }>>
> }>>I have not been involved in this process from the beginning, I'm not a
> }>>world-renowned expert on the 'Net, I'm just a user (although I'd like to
> }>>think more clueful than most).
> }>>But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that ICANN appears to be
> }>>setting up a takeover of the control of the Internet and make their
> }>>"temporary" approval by NTIA "permanent" via fiat.
> }>>
> }>>EVERYTHING I've seen from ICANN and their procedures has been a manuvering
> }>>to make themselves de facto NewCo, rather than setting the stage for NewCo.
> }>> All their decisions, procedures, actions, etc. seem to be more intended to
> }>>position themselves as the 'Net Authority so they can then turn to the USG
> }>>and say "we've done all the work...why bring someone else in now?"
> }>>
> }>>May I suggest that some of these complaints voiced here regarding ICANN
> }>>find their way to the people in the USG who will be making decisions on the
> }>>transition of power?
> }>
> }>
> }>To which I would add . . .
> }>
> }>The proposed draft guidelines for ICANN "registrars"
> }>makes our wranglings over the DNSO substantially moot.
> }>
> }>Virtually every policy that would normally be considered
> }>by a DNSO is *already* decided in these draft guidelines.
> }>
> }>
> }>Respectfully,
> }>
> }>Jay Fenello
> }>President, Iperdome, Inc.
> }>404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
> }
> }
> }Jon Zittrain
> }Harvard Law School
> }Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> }http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
> }Lecturer on Law
> }http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is98
> }http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj
> }+ 1 617 495 4643
> }+ 1 617 495 7641 (fax)
> }
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
