On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Gordon Cook wrote:
> I hope you are right. But when I see the development of GAC and I do
> not see esther and mike disown the gacsters I get very nervous.
I think I may have a solution to that. One political in nature. I agree
with you that GAC is a bit out of control and for governments sake must be
restructured. Some of the comments I heard at the GAC meeting were
outrageous. It's obvious tooney has little control in public
presentation.
The resources exist for public organization and complaint. The yahoos in
GAC - are civivl servants - they work for us - and ultimately our
responsible to us throw our elected representatives. I think it time
these issues were raised in public newsgroups with invites to all to join
the process. At the same time people should be petitioned to contact and
complain to their elected representatives.
If you don't like GAC - have it replaced. If people are interested in
this answer YES - and i'll collect your email addresses for organizing
such an effort.
> >I'm very concerned that alot of people
> >are going to end up with egg on their faces and we should take every
> >opportunity to avoid that.
>
> ????
The old keep everyone happy theory.
> >Jim, Esther, Mike and the remainder of the gang will not use whatever
> >control they do have because the reprocussions would be fatal. Whoever
> >makes the first move will by default be thrown off the party boat and lose
> >whatever control they did have. If this were to ever happen internet
> >users would receive a quick education and they would be fried alive and
> >this process forever lost.
>
> why would loosing the process be bad? If you mean we'd get
> alternative roots, I'd say hooray. Are you familiar with einar
> stefferud's point of view on this subject? If not you should read
> archieves of ORSC mailist from jan to march 99....from april on it
> became rather defunct
Would take some time to reorganize and we may end up with a worse problem.
My associates are interested in following the path of least resistance to
accomplish the goal. If that process is not viable then we would be happy
to consider another.
One of our main concerns is that their are not enought people in the icann
process. As am example - the ga archives only contain some 120
individuals. Thats not enough people to rationalize a takeover of the
dot.world. Obviously we have to beef up the ranks, open some doors and
bring in some ordinary folk to the party.
> >At this time control of the internet is distributed to 150,000 entities
> >who control the root pointers. I think it's time to ask them what they
> >think.
>
> absolutely true
Thank you for your support. Your the only individual who has addressed
this part of my statement, which I think is the most important goal to
accomplish.
> >But before we do that, the quality of the discussion in these conferences
> >must improve. ICANN's survival depends on it.
>
> I have been with you up to this point ...here you loose me. ICANN
> acts with such disgusting arrogance that I cannot understand why
> anyone would want to save it.
I agree, there is considerable arrogance on icanns part via some
representatives. And I anticipate that will improve if more people are
involved. There will be more reason for caution on their part - and
caution breeds openess and resposiveness.
And if that does not work, then we can can icann and move on to the next
step. But in that case, the DNS revolution would proceed with a wide base
of support. At this time it looks to us more like a small war that's well
balanced in scale. in other words - it's been going on for so long - it's
become tradition.
Regards
Jeff Mason
--
Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
