Dave and all,
Good response as far as it goes anyway. Our [INEGroup] ( now over
90k STAKEHOLDERS strong ) are finding that the PROCESS and the
thus far divisive STRUCTURE, is not in line with what the White Paper
requires, or is following the MoU agreement that the ICANN has with the
NTIA/DOC. Our members BTW are about 35% european. If it is viewed that
both the PROCESS and the thus far devised STRUCTURE is also
seriously flawed as the post with the organization of the ICANN Chart
shows, we have a situation with an ICANN that mear fixing may be
improbable and likely even more divisive in and of itself... This was in
essence my point, and I think Gordon's point as well.
Dave Farber wrote:
> When I said many cultures represented I DID NOT mean in a democratic fashion but in
>the context of an outlook on process. Europeans have a different perspective.
>
> At 09:12 AM 3/13/99 +0000, jeff Williams wrote:
> >Dave and all,
> >
> >Dave Farber wrote:
> >>There are many cultures represented on the Interim Board . Many come from cultures
>that do not engage in open board meetings nor have legal requirements for public
>meetings to be open. If the purpose of openness is to insure visibility of the
>process then my suggestion goes a long way to PROTECTING the community with
>recognition of the attitudes of many of the Board members.
> > We [INEGroup] don't see that there are MANY cultures represented on the
> >Interim Board. I personally would say that this is a bit of an overstatement.
> >Your mileage seems to vary as I am sure others does as well. The only
> >sure way in which the stakeholders can be adequately protected has to
> >a great extent already been subverted or overted as there should have been
> >a membership organization in place as a first priority to keep the board
> >honest and in check. This was not done and has yet to be accomplished.
> >It also appears that there will be a membership that will not equitably
> >represent the stakeholders at large, but rather one that is likely to be
> >divisive through some rendition of a constituency model a la the poor
> >decision on the DNSO. Hence we are starting out with an ICANN that
> >is secretive, for what is now reveled as obvious reasons, and is
> >structurally, and from a process point of view, BROKEN.
> >>
> >>
> >>The Interim Board is interim, lets fix the real Board and patch the transient
>situation
> >Yes, it can be fixed, however this is not difficult to do as their are decisions
>that
> >the interim board have made a la Singapore that are NOT representative
> >of the stakeholder community as is part of the Requirements of the
> >White Paper. This being the case we are now seemingly dealing with a
> >Interim Board that seem to feel that they can act with relative impunity and
> >unilaterally as well as non-transparently. This is not a good scenario, and
> >shows lack of good leadership and violates the Presidents "No Harm" policy.
> >>
> >>
> >>I want ICANN to work as it was envisioned early by Jon and others. I see no viable
>alternative except ITU and WIPO or maybe the FCC etc. It is too late to throw it away
>unless you like the alternatives.
> > I don't totally agree that the ITU and WIPO are the only alternatives. In fact
> >the NTIA in the White Paper mandated that WIPO do a study regarding the
> >DNS and Domain name issues with respect to Trademarks.
> >
> > What is needed is a interim board that is fully responsible to the
> >Stakeholders as the White Paper requires. Currently this does not
> >appear to be the situation. There is not a "Bottom-up" approach
> >in this malignant structure and process being orchestrated by
> >the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board, as well as with the less than
> >helpful Berkman Center to a great degree. It is the old familiar
> >political "Shell Game" that is afoot, as some recognized early on and
> >now many are beginning to realize.
> >>
> >>
> >>Dave
> >>
> >>At 07:20 AM 3/13/99 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> >>>Dave,
> >>>
> >>>>It seemed to me that this provides protection for all parties. When the new
>Board is elected one hopes (expects) they will hold open meetings and the observer
>need will go away.
> >>>
> >>>It is not clear what is being "protected" on the ICANN side.
> >>>The function of the Interim Board was to get an open collaborative
> >>>standards organization running, not set up a global governance
> >>>regime. The secrecy only abets the latter proclivity.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--tony
> >>
> >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
> >
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
