you need to get more sleep & stop smoking so many cigarettes michael .....
best wishes
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Al Gore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Alan Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Barbara Dooley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Beckwith Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Bret A. Fausett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Chip Pickering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Connie
Morella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Courtney Macavinta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Eric Menge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; F. James Sensenbrenner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Gil Gutknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Howard Sartori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; James Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Larry
Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Madeleine Albright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Nick Patience <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Jeri Clausing <jeri@nytime
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] GAC Draft Agenda
Jay Fenello a �crit:
>
> 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?
We would also like to know the answer to these questions.
> And a broader question -- who is calling
> the shots, the GAC or the ICANN Board?
Further questions:
1) Was the GAC gotten up, and in the process of being empowered to
decide ccTLD issues in order to circumvent the ICANN Bylaw
proscription against national governments intervening in ICANN DNS
policy decisions?
2) Have the U.N., the W.T.O., the O.E.C.D., UNCITRAL, the W.C.P.O.
and other international organizations debating Internet governance
been consulted? Are they participating in the GAC?
> >5.Report from ICANN / EU / ITU on current administrative arrangements
> >concerning ccTLDs, including:
What is the ITU doing in the GAC?
> >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?
It is also closed, opaque, and unaccountable, the exact opposite of
open, transparent, and accountable.
> >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?
If equal time is not given to the WIPO critics, such as Michael
Froomkin, Milton Mueller, the DNRC, the ICIIU, and others, there is
no consensus process and the GAC is in violation of ICANN's bylaws.
Further, the Committees being created by ICANN cannot be allowed to
be used to circumvent internal democratic and bylaws-controlled
processes of ICANN. The GAC, and the purposes to which it is
apparently being put, are in flagrant violation of the precepts of
the USG's White Paper.
> >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?
More likely, it seems to mean that the unelected ICANN board,
dominated by a pro-IAHC (ISOC/CORE/INTA) President and Jon Postel's
perjurer-attorney Joe Sims, intend to control and regulate all TLDs,
including all the ccTLDs, to their economic advantage and that of
ISOC/CORE/INTA.
> >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.
I believe it is worse than that. Probably the GAC and ICANN plan to
impose the French model on the rest of the world, which will mean,
among other intolerable things, no SLDs for individuals.
> 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?
It's obvious that ICANN and their GAC have no use for input from the
other side. They have made unilateral decisions concerning the
future of the Domain Name System under the authoritarian central
control of ICANN, and therefore their only relationship to any
opposition to that plan is to silence and suppress it.
> >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*.
These are and have always been the tactics of ISOC, CORE, the INTA
and the others who devised the IAHC in order to consolidate their
control over the Internet.
> It also appears that the big questions are
> answered in the GAC first, with ICANN then
> following their decisions through their
> closed board meetings.
ICANN is the creature of the IAHC in its present manifestations. The
so-called GAC is just another front for their acquisition of power.
> Please re-assure us.
Waste no more time in trying to be reassured. Face the facts. A
naive and ambitious person in the U.S. DOC - Beckwith Burr - has
been won over by the neo-IAHC and is using her position in
government to legitimize a one-sided takeover of power, a coup
d'etat, in the DNS and the Internet.
