Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Esther,
>
> > Michael Sondow said there were several dissents. Someone else
> > (Gurry?) said something (I think), and I asked about who else
> > dissented, because I know only about Froomkin, and I'd be interested
> > to hear more (rather than vague assertions). Only one dissent among
> > WIPO's own experts, that is....
>
> If you really want consensus by acclamation, why not say so and
> dispense with all this 'representative' stuff?
This of course, would be far to obvious....
> My own reaction is
> that Dr F made such an excellent case for further consideration of
> the implications, that there was hardly any more one could say.
For the most part, we (INEGroup) agree with this comment and
have come out publicly in support of Dr. F's alternative proposal.
>
>
> Today, he wrote:
> > Shortly after the close of the comment period this
> > Friday, March 12, WIPO will submit a revised version of its plan to
> > ICANN, the Internet Corporation on Assigned Names and Numbers.
>
> Rather than fret about 'vague assertions' of how many of WIPOs
> 'own experts' (interesting phrase, that) had objections, I'd be
> pleased if ICANN for its part, tries to determine if those objections
> are unworkably vague.
The vagueness of those precepts in the WIPO RFC-3 as in the
ICANN's Accreditation Guidelines are there purposefully so as
to leave interpretation in the hands of those who wish to interpret them
in the manner that might best befit the interpreter at any given point in
time. This if course is by it's nature, divisive and hence leads to a
destabilizing influence on the Internet and in particular the DNS.
> At the very least, that effort might help the
> rest of us understand what the Board's priorities are. Or would you
> rather we shrug it off: Eh, ICANN is only one administrative outfit
> anyhow?
It appears the the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board and future,
hopefully
openly and fairly elected ICANN boards, as setting a framework for making
policy independent of the stakeholders or in an unverifiable manner
from and by the stakeholders as the White Paper requires. This was
best illustrated in the "Accreditation Guidelines" approval without
consideration
of the known stakeholder lack of support for those Guidelines as well as
the dictation of the DNSO decision, both made in Singapore...
>
>
> kerry
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
