At 2/14/99, 05:18 PM, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
>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):
Hi Jonathan,
I'm sorry. I guess I didn't realize that the ICANN Board
was in a position to make arbitrary and independent
decisions as to the extent of their authority!
And while you might have been thinking these terms were
interchangeable, I assure you, BWG and ORSC were not. In
fact, it was one of our major points of departure with the
IANA proposal.
<snip>
>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
ICANN has greatly exceeded its mandate to deal with the
NSI monopoly. It appears to have established an entire
business model for all ICANN registrars, one that makes
ICANN the owner of all IP data, and assesses a tax on
all registrants without *any* checks and balances.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.�
404-943-0524� http://www.iperdome.com
