-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Esther,
I need to add a couple points to Jay's comments. In Section 4 is
written:
>The legal delegation and practical relationship between ICANN,
governments
>and ccTLD administrators Changes in policy for registrations under a
gTLD
>(for example, as occurred in .edu and as undertaken by NSI)
Infrastructure
>Trust Fund - Update on progress and the litigation process
This implies that 1)There have been changes in policy without regard
to the DNSO constituency groups' input and that 2) NSI has
singlehandedly taken this initiative. This is a questionable set of
practices considering the organization currently being formed. One
could construe that insiders are preparing the playing field before
the game.
Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated / anycastNET Incorporated
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jay Fenello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 12:40 PM
To: Esther Dyson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Becky Burr;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Esther Dyson; Mike Roberts;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] GAC Draft Agenda
Hi Esther,
Could you please explain this agenda
from the Governmental Advisory Committee:
>http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gacmtg2_agenda.htm
>
>DRAFT AGENDA
>
>1.Welcome
>
>2.Internal Communications - Practices and procedures
>
>3.Draft Operating Principles - Revision 2
>
>4.Report from Mike Roberts, President of ICANN, on:
>
>The legal delegation and practical relationship between ICANN,
governments
>and ccTLD administrators Changes in policy for registrations under a
gTLD
>(for example, as occurred in .edu and as undertaken by NSI)
Infrastructure
>Trust Fund - Update on progress and the litigation process
What legal delegation?
What changes in policy for registrations?
What Infrastructure Trust Fund?
(Is that the $50 million U.S. collected fund?)
What litigation?
And a broader question -- who is calling
the shots, the GAC or the ICANN Board?
>5.Report from ICANN / EU / ITU on current administrative arrangements
>concerning ccTLDs, including:
>
>Access to information for users Basis of delegation decisions
Since the GAC is not representative of the
diversity of ccTLD delegations models, and
neither is ICANN/EU/ITU, isn't this a biased
process from the get-go?
>6.Report from Francis Gurry (WIPO) on Intellectual property issues -
in
>particular, issues with regard to "cybersquatting, " the speculation
of
>domain names as property, and establishment of ownership rights.
Again, how will the GAC receive input
from critics of the WIPO report?
>7.Report from USA and ITU on applicability of specific business rules
/
>regimes to ccTLD's which are classified as "open" or "restricted"
Does this imply that some countries will
have full jurisdiction over their ccTLDs,
while others will have to defer to ICANN?
>8.Report from France, UK and Australia on Jurisdiction and
Territories
Does this have anything to do with France's
desire to take back control of the ccTLDs
that have been delegated to their possessions.
Since France, UK and Australia all see this
question from the same side of the street,
where will the GAC get input from those
standing on the other side?
>9.Communique / Media Release
>
>10.Any Other Business
>
>11.Next meeting
>
>12.Open Meeting - Dialogue with interested members of the Internet
community
What is truly disconcerting is that this
agenda appears to be just that -- an agenda.
It does not seem to be an impartial process
designed to gather facts, it appears to be
a process designed to see an agenda *through*.
It also appears that the big questions are
answered in the GAC first, with ICANN then
following their decisions through their
closed board meetings.
Please re-assure us.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.� 404-943-0524
- -----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBNzHMdJHtPfG6xLnPEQKqewCg+j0R1Yxv5I431ByrRgeBoyppPp8AoJ0+
yvMEuI57MJeRwB540FQj1fk6
=k/ob
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
