Are you at the IETF karl? I interviewed barb dooley of the CIX this afternoon. as http://www.icann.org/aso/aso-app.rtf shows the latin american association of ISPs, euroisp the association of European ISPs and the CIX submitted an proposal for an address supporting organization that looks to me to be reasonable. Barbara states that contrary to ICANN's established procedures this isp proposal was never put up for public comment and was neverdelivered to the ICANN board for its consideration, that the isps and address registries in singapore were ready to sit down and talk with each other and did so after esther announced the meeting that there would be a meeting sponsored by the IP number registries and leaving out that the commercial isps had anything to do with it. When she complained that the proposal should have been on the ICANN web site, she said sims said something like you don't expect us to put that craziness there? She said that she finally was promised that it would be placed on the site, but that by placing the disclaimer -- IMPORTANT NOTICE - This document is only an application for recognition as a Supporting Organization. It is NOT authoritative and are NOT to be relied on by any party -- ICANN was further violating process rules. I had a lot of questions that I was not getting really good answers for, but barbara emphasized that she wanted to talk about the process and that clearly the process was defective and that ICANN was flying in the face of the wishes of a major segment of the worlds isps by trying to discredit an application that did not conform to ICANNs agenda. Furthermore that she was unable to get any answer from anyone as to who had ordered the disclaimer added to the web site. Certainly from the process point of view she has valid points. barbara says the ISPs and IP AOs are talking constructively together now. I just wondor what the regiostry heads are doing at IETF. i have heard that all of a sudden they too will have a meeting. lack of ICANN accountability is becoming glaring it would seem. > >> So now we're stuck with this structure for the forseeable future >> (I don't think the Board is likely to change it. It is too difficult to >> introduce any substantive organizational changes. The time for that >> was in the fall. We lost that fight.) > >No, we didn't lose -- Jon Postel and Joe Sims created an unworkable >structure that was, additionally, chock full of near-nepotism and >sincecures. > >Its cracks are showing and widening; ICANN could readily collapse. > >But then again, so did the Articles of Confederation, leaving room for a >better sucessor design. > > --karl-- *************************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com ******************************************************************************
