>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:43:50 +0100
>From: Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
>To: ICANN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "Esther (The clueless) Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Mike (The Robber) Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Joe (Virus laden Web Page expert) Simms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> William Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tom Bliley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [IFWP] [Fwd: Poisson status] Example of ICANN's lack of proper
>accountability to the MOU with NTIA
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>All,
>
> I am forwarding this as after some minor investigation. It appears
>that
>Tony Rutkowski is correct in his response to Michael Sondow. Some of
>this information has been pointed out before to the ITU, the NTIA, the
>DOC, and the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board, with yet a proper or to
>my knowledge, any answer to questions the INEGroup or any other
>applicable organization has posed to the ICANN (Initial?) Interim
>Board to date, despite Esther Dyson's seemingly FALSE statements
>to the contrary. (See archives of ICANN's Comment E-Mail list
>for further evidence). Reference: http://www.icann.org/feedback.html,
>for archives listings of post covering these issues.
>
> Therefore we[INEGroup] would in the interest of the stakeholder
>and internet user community, request that the DOC along with
>most especially the house and senate commerce committees
>review this information that Mr. Rutkowski provided (See below),
>as well as review the ICANN E-Mail archives for further evidence...
>
>Kindest Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
>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
>
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101])
> by ixmail8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with ESMTP id
>FAA21431;
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 05:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA23383
> Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:31:53 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:51:59 -0400
>To: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Huizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Poisson status
>Cc: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>
>
>> > Both ETSI and ITU fullfill these criteria that were discussed in
>> > POISSON already sometime ago.
>>
>>The criteria are rigged. ETSI and the ITU are being made part of the
>>PSO because they are signatories to the gTLD/MoU. The PSO is nothing
>
>Michael,
>
>They conveniently overlooked some things. The MoU has the
>following requirements:
>
> Open international voluntary standards bodies are defined as
> international organizations that plan, develop or establish
> voluntary standards.
>
> An organization shall be considered open and international if
> its standards and/or specifications development process is
> open to any person or organization of any nationality on equitable
> terms. It shall be considered voluntary if it makes no claim to
> compel use of its standards and specifications."
>
>
>The ITU as an intergovernmental organization, only allows
>member governments to participate "of right." Everyone
>else must follow certain procedures in Art. 19 of the ITU
>Convention. There is no mechanisms for any person to
>participate, and the terms of participation require annual
>payments that are so great as to effectively preclude the
>participation of even small companies. In addition, the
>ITU require that to participate, the national administration
>having jurisdiction over the organization must approve.
>
>ETSI's requirements are not quite is rigorous, but participation
>is hardly open, I'm not aware in any case, it's open to persons;
>and the financial requirements are significant.
>
>In the case of the ITU, the International Telecommunication
>Regulations - a treaty instrument in force - requires that
>"administrations* should comply with, to the greatest extent
>practicable, the relevant CCITT Recommendations." See Art. 1
>para 1.6. In many countries, the ITU standards are obligatory.
>Similarly, many of ETSI's standards are obligatory in many
>European Union jurisdictions. For that reason, neither body
>has ever in the past been regarded as a "voluntary" standards
>body.
>
>But these are just additional examples of ICANN violating
>their basic instruments and IETF conveniently looking the
>other way.
>
>
>--tony
>
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
