Gordon and all, Thank you for making me anyway aware of this situation. Did you happen to notice any changes in the wording in this change over of RFC1591 vs ICP 1(ICANN)? I shall do a word for word comparison myself, but just thought you might has some input on this question. I also would wonder if the NTIA has reviewed this in terms of the new DOC/NTIA/NSI/ICANN "Deal" or Tentative agreement? Has the NTIA/DOC approved this in advance as required by the ne "Tentitive agreement"? If not, why not? Gordon Cook wrote: > Dear Poised list members.... please take a look at > http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gac3min.htm > > There you will find that: > > "Mr. Roberts reported that there were no further developments related > to the review process for the delegation of management of ccTLDs > since the May meeting of the GAC. He said that this reflects the > limited resources and funding available to ICANN to address the > matter and confirmed that ICANN views the matter as important. He > said that the document previously known as "RFC 1591" is now titled > "ICANN Policy Document 1" or "ICP 1" and is posted on the ICANN > website for reference. He confirmed that ICP 1 does not contain any > policy changes from RFC 1591 and is a simple restatement in the new > format. " > > I have some questions for Mr. Roberts and list members. > > It is well known that the GAC would like to hand countrol of country > code TLDs to the national governments of each country. > > If GAC/ICANN were not prepar ing to asset its own control over RFCs > why would GAC/ICANN now be grabbing and renaming RFCs? > > I would imagine that Roberts and company might not be so foolish as > to try to say that IPC1 could take precedence over RFC 1591. But I > can see ICANN as part of its on going process of taking more and more > authoity on to itsel f as saying: THIS is how we are interpreting > the management of county code domains. If the IE TF doesn't agree > that is the IETF's problem. After all the IETF is subbordinate to > ICANN as one of three protocol supporting oganizations. ICANN will > let the IETF keep its RFCs. It will just over ride them at will. > > Given the ICANN's behavior is this something that the IETF wishes to condone? > **************************************************************** > The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - > [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEW - Incompetence or Duplicity? ICANN > and it Allies' Stealth Agenda http://cookreport.com/isoccontrol.shtml > **************************************************************** 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
