>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Roeland M.J. Meyer"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 04:00:31 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 23 04:00:30 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com (condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.226])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F293FF087
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 04:00:29 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from hawk (hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.236])
> by condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id AAA15274;
> Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:53:34 -0700
>Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "IDNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: What if ICANN implodes?
>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:53:34 -0700
>Message-ID: <004401bed4e0$76cc35d0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>Importance: Normal
>
>That was an interesting note from Meeks. What I still don't understand,
>with their avowed concern for stability of the net, that NTIA/DOC
>transfered the root to an organization that admitedly has only two month
>operating capital left in the bank and NO visible prospects for getting
>more and no forseeable revenue stream before the current cash stash runs
>out.
>
>I was at work during the hearings, did someone mention this to the
>congress-critters? I know that we are all expecting ICANN to make $$$
>magically appear. But, if any other contractor, with the USG ( and ICANN
>are one), were to fall into such a situation, the last thing the FARs
>would allow is giving them even more responsibility without proving that
>they had the $where$with$all$ to stand the gaff.
>
>I am more and more certain that NTIA/DOC is acting illegally. But,
>IANAL, and therefore not sure about that.
>
>What if ICANN does go broke, while they control the a,root-servers.net?
>Yes, I know that the other root-servers would instantly take up the
>slack, but it's a scarey thought, isn't it?
>
>If they [ICANN] can continue to operate without visible funding, or
>declaration of additional funds infusion, then ICANN would lose whatever
>credibility they have left. At that point, the IDNO might consider
>standing alone, as an independent association.
>
>This is just something to think about folks. What does it mean when the
>ICANN can continue to operate without visible sources of funding, or
>revenue? That should scare the bejeesuz out of everyone.
>
>
>
--
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
