Gordon Cook a �crit:
>
> While all attention has been focused on the DNSO, on feb 5th three major
> commercial ISP associations submitted and application for an address
> supporting organization which as far as i know what did not make it into
> anyones press releases.
> http://www.icann.org/aso/aso-app.rtf
>
> February 5, 1999
>
> Ms. Esther Dyson
> Chairman of the Board of Directors
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> Today we are pleased to submit the attached application to be recognized as
> the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) for the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
<snip>
> We would have preferred a delay in the final
> submission and selection deadlines until after the March APRICOT meeting in
> Singapore. A delay would give APIA and other Internet stakeholders
> gathered in Singapore an opportunity to further discuss and submit their
> proposals for the ASO and the DNSO.
The Asia-Pacific organizations were represented in the DNSO
discussions in Singapore. Why should their views and proposals on
the DNSO be considered more than anyone else's? For that matter,
what has this to do with a proposal for an ASO?
> Commercial Internet eXchange Association (CIX)
> EuroISPA
> Federacion de LatinoAmerica y el Caribe Para Internet y el Comercio
> Electronico (eCOM-LAC)
While these are certainly among the most important representative
organizations of ISPs, none of the regional registries are
signatories to the proposal. Don't you think that this, in itself,
is enough for the proposal not to be accepted, in view of the fact
that the regional registries are reported to be preparing an ASO
proposal and have undoubtedly been in touch with ICANN?
I'm not disputing your grievance at the way this proposal seems to
have been shuffled under the table. But I think there may be
perfectly valid reasons why it has not been put forth by ICANN as
the ASO proposal.
