Milton wrote:
>As you can see from the letter below, WITSA and ITAA are lobbying
>their members to support the BMW proposal. In the process, they are
>telling untruths about the alternative, Paris draft proposal. Ms.
>O'Neill below implies that the Paris draft proposal was signed *only*
>by NSI and ORSC. She does not mention the AIP, the DNRC, nor the 20+
>ccTLD registries who have also supported the Paris draft. Furthermore,
>using the time honored but now rather wearying ISOC-POC-PAB-CORE
>tactics, they attempt to base their appeal for support almost entirely
>on animosity to NSI, thus proving that they have no interest in moving
>beyond the factional divisions that have stymied progress in Internet
>administration for the past four years.
>
>Unfortunately, many WITA/ITAA members will not know enough about this
>issue to perceive the false claims. Ms. O'Neill distributed a canned
>boilerplate "letter of support" to their members, and presumably some
>of them will forward it, filling in the blanks. This is perhaps a
>foretaste of what the people who run the dnso.org consider to be
>"representation" and "bottom up governance."
>
>The ICANN/White Paper process was supposed to represent "industry
>self-governance" based on private-sector "consensus-building" outside
>of government. It should be clear by now that the factions and
>factional alignments have not changed, and that the process is nothing
>more than a vehicle for one faction to win at the expense of others.
>--MM
Milt and list readers, I just reached Sheilla by phone and informed her of
the black and white inaccuracies in the memo that you posted.
She wanted to know what memo. When I identified it she wanted to know who
posted it. i said you. The gist of her reaction was of course that the
memo was not intended for public distribution.
when I informed her that DNRC, AIP, Center, and 20 CC administrators had
also signed the 'other draft' she wanted to know when. I said it was at
the end of the meeting in paris that produced what is known as the Paris
draft. she said she was unaware of the Paris draft because she had dropped
off the IFWP list in early January. She reads the ICANN lists. And I
guess but am not certain the DNSO lists.
I pointed out that she was going to dismiss ORSC as an organization of 7 or
8 individuals, she should have the integrity to say that ORSC along with
BWG was designated by the Adminsitration (magaziner) as more responsive in
its bylaws to the concerns of the white paper than ICANN. And that she
should say that ORSC was also composed of individuals excluded by her
signatories POC, CORE, ISOC etc from consideration of their own domain name
issue over the last 2 years.
I pointed out that her statements to her members that ICANN had been
assigned control of critcical internet functions such as domain names and
root servers by the US governmnet was false. And needed correction.
She said of course she would see that her members got factually accurate
data and promised to sign on to IFWP immediately. I gave her
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as address and advised her to contact richard sexton
if that didn't work.
I would hope that she will post her revised memo before the end of the day
and ask the person who was going to call members to be certain that her
members got the corrected memo first. now if I believe that this will
happen maybe someone has a bridge to sell me? Let's see what the word of
WITSA is worth.
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cookreport.com
NOTE: Contempt in which ICANN PRES. MIKE ROBERTS holds rest of Internet:
"Some of those people think the management [ICANN] should check with the
public [the Communities of the Internet] every time they make a decision,
which is crazy," Roberts said. "That's flat-out crazy." WIRED NEWS 2/4/99
***************************************************************************
