Ivan and all,
Ivan Pope wrote:
> >I'll go you one better - after the meeting, some members of the ORSC
> >(and Jim, too) met with the board informally to clarify some concerns.
> >Esther reiterated this position then, as well.
>
> I think the problem here (as so often in this process) is that a self
> defining group with (often fairly reasonable) grievances then forms the
> view that it is the only legitimate opposition group and therefore should
> be placed in a position of privelege.
If you are referring in your comment (Above), " legitimate opposition group
and therefore should be placed in a position of privilege" in response to
Chris's
comment (Above yours here), than I don't see the connection. However
to a great extent what we are seeing I believe is repetition of history
(Referencing the IAHC/gTLD-MoU fiasco) in many respects to the actions
and lack there of, from the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board. The
similarities
to us anyway are striking in many respects.
>
>
> It would be useful to see a list of all of those who claim that by their
> opposition they should be on this committee.
THis committee should be much larger than it is, but due to the obvious
underfunding of the ICANN is is no small wonder it is as small as it is.
>
>
> It seems to me that the membership committee has no de facto power and can
> only work it if publically brings forth some well considered and workable
> solutions that ICANN will have to adopt or explain why it hasn't.
In a sense you have contradicted your self in this statement in and of
itself.
The committee' power IS that whatever it comes up with as suggestions
or recommendations will likely be adopted, and the ICANN at this juncture,
being 30 days behind, cannot afford to explain why it won't support the
Memberships committee's recommendations. That IS real power indeed.
>
>
> I would prefer to see some public thinking on this. Then, I would prefer to
> see some public thinking from ICANN itself. We seem to have gone back into
> a period of total silence. It is now the beginning of 1999. Those of us
> running Domain Name businesses are still totally unable to plan for 1999,
> because the USG said that by March there would be competition - and it
> seems that nothing has even started yet.
Couldn't agree with you more here Ivan. The ICANN in our opinion
started out on the wrong foot (Reference to openness and transparency)
and hasn't gotten into step yet. It is grossly underfunded due to its
own ineptness, which hamstrings it even more. Not a good scenario.
>
>
> Rather than arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a TLD,
> we should be bringing pressure on ICANN, USG and NSI to resolve this
> ridiculous situation.
To us (INEGroup) ICANN has not the ability or the wherewithal to solve
this dilemma, and hasn't almost from the beginning.
>
> Thanks,
> Ivan
>
>
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
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
