Vajrabukka, Nikki wrote:
> I apologise for any inconvenience or misunderstanding this may have caused.
It did indeed cause a misunderstanding, because the activities of
the GAC as evidenced in the agenda are the subject of serious
controversy, and the agenda disappeared from your website soon after
a number of messages were circulated requesting an explanation of
certain rather astonishing items on it, which naturally caused some
suspicion as to the reasons for its withdrawal.
I am copying the original set of questions, sent by Jay Fenello, and
ask you to place them before Mr. Twomey at your earliest possible
convenience so that he may reply to them and quiet the fears many of
us now have that the GAC is pursuing policy decisions outside the
scrutiny of the community that will be affected by them.
Thank you.
Michael Sondow
.....................................................
Objet: [IFWP] Re: GAC Draft Agenda
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 15:21:59 -0400
From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copies to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Becky Burr
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike
Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks Esther . . . and Hello Paul,
Could you help clarify these questions?
Thanks in advance,
Jay.
At 02:58 PM 5/6/99 , Esther Dyson wrote:
>Jay -
>
>The GAC calls its own shots. It advises *us*; we do not advise *it.* (And
>it *advises* us; it does not control us. We make decisions pursuant to our
>own bylaws, with input ("recommendations") from the GAC, from you, from DNSO
>members, from anyone else... Please check with the GAC itself on your
>questions below.
>
>Esther
>
>At 12:40 PM 06/05/99 -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
>>
>
>
>Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1 (212) 924-8800
>1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
>
>High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>PC Forum: March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
>
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
