Yes, especially the part about the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. Canadians threw in almost 5 million dollars into that, and the stated purpose (from the mean who created it) was "to keep the IETF process from being captured". Not to fund the IETF per se, but to keep *that process* alive. Intellectual Infrastructure is a funny phrase and it might even be new. What it means of course is: people. The kind of things it was meant to go for were workshops, travel expenses, research grants and the like. Instead it's been snarfed by the US Congress for Amerian universities. Now, would I have bought so many .com domain names if I'd known thats where the money was going ? That is, I felt ok about paying an extra thirty bucks for a com/net/org domain name because I agreed very storngly with the stated purpose of collecting that money. But it's like your told you're paying a tax for road improvements and suddenly find the cash went to arts council grants. I'll say it again. Canadins threw in five million dollars into this fund. It wasn't for US universities it wasn't even for Canadian universities. It was to guarentee the continuation of the process that developed the Internet in the face of contemporary commercial realities. At 12:40 PM 5/6/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: > > >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 > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" --Thomas Jefferson
