Mike and all, I am not sure that I like the tone of you comments here. Be that as it may, it has been YOUR particular practice to frequently misstate the situation and this has bad habit of yours has met with several press releases of you errant comments relating to issues of this nature on more than one occasion. After a legal and in-depth review I would not be beyond reason I believe that we [INEGroup] should therefore reserve judgment or opinion in specific to your statement here. Given YOUR past exclamatory statements in the past, we feel that this response may have ulterior motives. One thing I can take exception with that has proven out in the past is that the discussions prior to the Santiego that you had regarding any RFC would seem to be in direct violation with the White Paper and the MoU as well as the ICANN bylaws. Mike Roberts wrote: > As was the case with Gordon's last post to POISED, his alleged > facts don't match reality very well. If anyone on the list wishes > to explore this item beyond the scope of my points below, I'd be > happy to discuss it with you offline - see contact info below. > > - the white paper and the DOC MOU with ICANN explicitly identify > TLD delegations as an area of ICANN policy responsibility. We > are currently in transition under those various agreements and > moving from the era of Jon Postel stewardship of the TLD delegations > to one of ICANN responsibility is a task we are now engaged in. > The ICANN DNSO has a working group [see dnso.org] focusing on > part of the complex issues involved and their recommendations will > come to the ICANN Board in due course for further public comment, etc. > > - as a first step, it was necessary to update and restate the guidance > contained in 1591 WITHOUT making any policy changes. This was done > last April and May, and the resulting document was discussed by me and > others in several meetings in Berlin at the end of May, including the > public forum held on the Wednesday. Neither in the meetings in May, > nor in the discussions in Santiago in August was there any feedback > that ICP-1 was not consistent with previous IANA practice during > Jon's management. > > - RFC-1591 was an informational, not a standards setting RFC. The IETF > publishes numerous informational RFC's that meet various needs of the > technical community. It was well known that 1591 was a document that > Jon used in connection with his personal diplomacy in finding public > spirited individuals and organizations around the world that were > willing to help spread the Internet by putting up and maintaining a > TLD server. ICANN aspires to do as well as Jon did with this > task and it won't be easy. > > - The relationship between ICANN and IAB/IETF is set out in the PSO > MOU, and in the exchange of correspondence between Esther Dyson and > Brian Carpenter from last winter, which will shortly be the subject > of an IAB/IANA MOU. These are public documents, they are not > ambiguous, and they do not give any policy role to ICANN in the > technical standards setting activity of the IETF. > > - Mike Roberts > > ----------- > > Michael M. Roberts > Interim President and Chief Executive Officer > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330, Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 > +1 310.823.9358 voice +1 310.823.8649 fax http://www.icann.org > > Office of the Interim President & CEO > 339 La Cuesta Drive, Portola Valley, CA 94028 USA > +1.650.854.2108 voice / +1.650.854.8134 fax > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
