Kerry and all,
Although your questions are very well posed and as such are deserved
of an answer, completely and unequivocally, it is not likely that you shall
receive any answers either directly or indirectly from Esther or any
other member of the ICANN Interim Board. This is simply because, as
you say you are considered "One of the little guys".
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Esther,
> > I make trade-offs, as we all (most of us) do.
>
> Yesterday, Ronda mentioned the 3/98 HR committee hearing.
> Supposing the points made there to be still relevant to ICANNs
> mandate and methodology, Ive borrowed a few quotes from the
> transcript (at
> http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy090140.000/hs
> y090140_0.htm ) and have interpolated 8 questions for you.
>
> Charles Pickering says,
>
> [W]e need to keep in mind that our goal is not simply to transfer
> the DNS to the private system just to get it out of the hands of the
> U.S. Government. For years the U.S. Government, through the
> National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research
> Projects Agency, has been an excellent steward of the Internet.
> The American taxpayer has put quite a bit of money behind this
> project, and we have to ensure that the investment is not harmed
> during this transition.
>
> Lastly, we need to remember that the most important people, in
> terms of the Internet, are the actual end-users. That is the Internet
> user at his or her desk in Houston or Los Angeles or Jackson,
> Mississippi, home of the largest Internet provider today. I think all
> of us agree that our decisions on this topic must be made with the
> best interests of the individual Internet user in mind...
>
> [Q 1. If we suppose his "actual end-users" are at least some of
> your "little guys," can you say with whom you are compromising
> their "most important" interests, and why those compromises are
> necessary?]
>
> =============
> Robert Kahn says,
>
> In my view, the Internet is not really in any crisis. It's not in danger
> of any immediate failure and, basically, any tact on our part to try
> and make some premature decisions seems to me is ill-founded.
> We really do have the time to consider these issues.
>
> [Q. 2. Can you tell us how the timetable was set for the various
> decision which the interim board has made (particularly in the light
> of point #5 of ICANNs FAQ, "... it seems desirable to set artificial
> deadlines to encourage early action on the formation of the
> constituencies") and how these help the little guy? ]
>
> ... A critical part of this is to systematically structure a process by
> which we can get the use from as many of the relevant parties as
> possible, not just using mechanisms like e-mail for comment, but I
> would think we should get the international community and as
> many of those who have chosen to weigh-in�who have chosen not
> to weigh-in yet�as we can and to do it with more deliberate
> interactions between the parties. I think this will actually help
> determine a long-term, stable solution of Internet governance.
> [...]
> *In addition* to the overall goal of stability in the Internet, other
> specific goals should be to ensure integrity in the management of
> the Internet addresses, the numbers; openness in the standards
> process; and, competition in services so the Internet can continue
> to evolve and thrive.
>
> [Q. 3-5. Can you say what you have done on the board to get
> "those who have not chosen to weigh in" to do so? (How many
> attendees at your international meetings did *not have e-mail
> access?) Can you say why ICANNs comment boards are not even
> e-mail lists, but are accessible only by Web browser, even though
> listserver software is one of the most fully developed internet
> applications available to the "actual end-user"? What have you
> done to keep the *additional* points from overriding the "critical
> part"?]
>
> =========
> Dave Farber says,
>
> Any foundation for governance of the Internet must support
> fundamental human rights, a free expression, free association, due
> process, and nondiscriminatory administration. What may not be
> obvious at first glance, the management of the domain naming
> system impacts greatly on these basic human rights. It's through
> network addresses and domain names that organizations place
> their speech on the Internet. And it's through these addresses that
> others can locate this speech. It is easy for those responsible for
> administrating basic Internet functions to loose sight of this and to
> act in ways that unnecessarily burden the ability to exercise free
> speech. Already censorship has appeared in arbitrary and uneven
> manners on the network, and it is damaging our rights to speak.
> [...]
>
> Sitting on the net and watching, over the last 6 months, this debate
> take place, reminds me of a set of people launching a nuclear
> missiles at each other via e-mail. There's been, I think, inadequate
> opportunity for people to actually sit down in a relatively neutral
> setting and actually talk to each other. That's unfortunate. The e-
> mail sometimes gets so hot, my computer melts, and that's not
> productive.
>
> In a sense, what we need is an organization that can � a
> mechanism, not an organization � which can pull together the
> stakeholders. One of the problems that I always have is, when you
> say a private enterprise, not-for-profit will take over, the problem is
> that there are a lot of people who want to establish that right now,
> and that's part of the basic problem. There's no way of getting
> together and saying, ''Yes, that's a good idea, let's get together and
> decide how to do it.''
>
> [This point is reinforced by an unidentified Mr Ehlers:]
>
> Also, the comment that was made about the people who really
> need to be involved and should be involved, often don't have either
> the time or the inclination to send e-mail or to engage in these
> battles is very true. I've been involved in the peacemaker's role
> often�and so far I haven't been shot, cursed, perhaps, but not
> shot�but that's a role that often we can play very effectively, and
> getting together the right people.
>
> And that's the key, identifying the people who should be around the
> table, getting them around the table and serving as mediators. I'm
> sure that Mr. Magaziner can play that same role, as well. But that,
> I think, is a good informal function of government and I've seen it
> work many times, and work very, very effectively. So I hope that in
> this case, also, it will be successful.
>
> [Q. 6-8. Do you agree that "getting people around the table" is a
> good idea? Can you explain why the Board has not adopted the
> proposals you have doubtless made to it repeatedly, to use the
> facilities of the Internet to involve the "most important people"? Do
> you think that, if established government is not to have even an
> oversight capacity, more can be done to "represent" this good
> informal function of government?]
>
> As one of the little guys, weighing your continuing representation of
> my interests, I look forward to your considered replies.
>
> kerry miller
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
