William, Rhonda and all,
It appears that Rhonda is referring to a potential conflict of
laws pertaining to this process. And that conflict is not
difficult to see as potentially in existence, and may later come
back an haunt ICANN as some point.
It also seems relatively obvious that David Post, and I agree, that
the differences of opinion between him and Mike Roberts on the
ICANN Interim Board is using it's own interpretation of the White Paper
of some parts of it to enact of otherwise effect policies (Edicts)
without the check or balance of a membership organization by which
these imposed policies thus far could and many believe should be
ratified by majority vote of the ICANN membership, before enactment
or implementation.
We know form several news postings and quotes from Mike Roberts
that he is strongly opposed to the membership or individuals in any form
from having such a "Check" on the decisions of the ICANN Interim Board.
This is in some parlance's, perhaps a majority, deemed unexceptable and
not in keeping with the precepts of the White Paper. I would agree with
this by in large.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Oh spare us Rhonda. Are you still on this diatribe?
>
> Your interpretation here has been twisted totally out of context, as
> can be seen by anyone who actually reads the relevent references.
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:59:54 -0400 (EDT), Ronda Hauben
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >But also the U.S. govt under the White paper has outlined what
> >ICANN can do and thus has created ICANN in violation of the
> >Government Corporate Control Act.
> >
> >>This boards primary goal was supposed to be getting an ELECTED board
> >>in place, and from comments from Ms Dyson, it looks like one more year
> >>till then. I blame this delay on ICANN itself, they have failed to
> >>take the steps that would of led to an open ICANN membership, and
> >>intentionally delayed the creation of an Initial Board. They use the
> >>delay as a means of justifying their taking actions beyond the scope
> >>of their charter.
> >
> >
> >But membership or election doesn't change the fact that ICANN is
> >being created without any oversight mechanisms that take into
> >account the great power and control that the U.S. governemnt is
> >trying to pass over to ICANN in opposition to what it is
> >allowed to do.
> >[
> >
> >
> >>>On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:33:54 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>wrote:
> >
> >>>Since ICANN and ISOC bashing seems to be a major topic on this list,=20
> >>>here's some material to counterbalance:
> >>
> >>>----- Forwarded message from "vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
> >>
> >>>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:55:11 -0400
> >>>From: "vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>Subject: ICANN Commentary (Mike Roberts, David Post)
> >>>To: "ISOC Members Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>Reply-To: ISOC Members Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>>I thought this exchange was relevant to ISOC members.
> >>
> >>>Vint Cerf
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> >----------
> >>
> >>
> >>>From: Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>Subject: Commentary on June 5 Essay re ICANN
> >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Commentary on Professor David Post's Essay of June 5 Concerning ICANN
> >>
> >>>>As a member of the American university community for more than thirty=20
> >>>>years, I have the utmost respect for its standards of open inquiry, but=20
> >>>>I find myself in strong disagreement with the premises, the asserted=20
> >>>>facts and the logic of Professor Post's recent essay on ICANN, which=20
> >>>>opens with the statement, "...my goal here is just to suggest that=20
> >>>>notwithstanding the government's (and ICANN's) protestations to the=20
> >>>>contrary, this is about nothing less than Internet governance writ=20
> >>>>large."=20
> >>
> >>>>I definitely do protest to the contrary; the facts do not support this=20
> >>>>conclusion. The truth of the current situation is that ICANN is pursuing=
> >=20
> >>>>its work program as spelled out in the Government's White Paper on the=20
> >>>
> >
> >>>>Management of Internet Names and Addresses and in the Department of=20
> >
> >
> >Hence the U.S. government has in fact created ICANN in violation
> >of the laws allowing it to do so!
> >
> >>>>Commerce's Memorandum of Understanding/Joint Project Agreement with=20
> >>>>ICANN that was executed last November. The tasks set forth therein=20
> >>>>include (extract from the contract):
> >>
> >
> >Under the communications act of 1934 the U.S. government is obligated
> >to regulate the communications medium in the U.S. and hence the
> >Internet.
> >
> >>>>a. Establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of IP=20
> >>>>number blocks;=20
> >>
> >>>>b. Oversight of the operation of the authoritative root server system;=20
> >>
> >>>>c. Oversight of the policy for determining the circumstances under which=
> >=20
> >>>>new top level domains would be added to the root system;=20
> >>
> >>>>d. Coordination of the assignment of other Internet technical parameters=
> >=20
> >>>>as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; and=20
> >>
> >>>>e. Other activities necessary to coordinate the specified DNS management=
> >=20
> >>>>functions, as agreed by the Parties."
> >>
> >(...)
> >
> >Ronda
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> William X. Walsh
> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>
> The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
> to every time you have something to whimper about.
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
