Gordo and all, I again find myself in agreement by in large here with Gordo. Nicely stated and outlined in brief here Gordo. >;) I continues to amaze me as well our [INEGroup's] members that Mike Roberts as well as several other more vocal and somewhat active members of the ICANN BoD, take on discussing semi-public resources and their use and management in "one-on-one" quiet diplomacy discussions when this it not in the sprit of the White Paper and especially not allowed in the MoU. However I can understand at least some of their possible motivations. As some of you may know, Mike Roberts company "Educom" is wanting to take over the .EDU TLD. The other thing that continues to amaze me as well as a vast majority of our [INEGroup's] members is that the NTIA is supposed to have oversight of this endeavor, yet they continue to allow this sort of behavior form the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board. This gives the impression that they can operate with relative impunity. That is not good for the process, and also very bad for the stability of the Internet. Dangerous indeed!! But of course, Mike Roberts has made his position on where he stands with the STAKEHOLDERS quite clear on several occasions. One such occasion was back in July in a Wired article. I believe he referred to the STAKEHOLDERS as "Kooks"... This seems somewhat elitist if you ask me.... It is for this amongst other reasons after the Singapore ICANN meeting (Circus?) that we [INEGroup] requested of the NTIA and DOC to ask for the immediate resignation of all of the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board members. Gordon Cook wrote: > Hi Christian, > > I generally agree with your post but would like to make two comments. > > 1. About 2 to 3 years ago Jon faced a decision where the government > of Haiti wanted control of its tld and asked Jon to remove it from > the entity to whom he had given it. Jon did so. A fair number of > people were concerned and upset by the implications of the move. Jon > was beginning to be threatened with legal actions and USC refused to > provide legal defense so what was he to do? I wrote about his but > don't remember in what issue. > > 2. you write: I expect > that if a dispute arise between a contractor and a government, the dispute > will be resolved by the legal system of the said country, and that the > contractor, when they choose to enter in a business agreement with a > government, de facto accept to comply with the country's laws. > > I say probably a fair expectation. What should not happen however is > for ICANN and its GAC to try to create a situation where governments > would be ENCOURAGED to do this. I strongly believe that it is not in > the best interests of the Internet nor its users to create a > situation where the NORM begins to be gov't control of ccTLDs. Make > no mistake about it -- this is where ICANN is headed. > > Who on this list really wants to see .us run by the US Postal > Service? I certainly don't and yes I am afraid that I long for he > good old days when the norm might have been for Mike Roberts to > discuss his points here rather than invite list members to contact > him one on one so that no other list members can observe what he is > saying in his one on one conversations. > > >At 11:16 PM 10/7/99 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote: > > > > >Neither Esther Dyson nor Brian Carpenter nor your trumped-up and > > >unrepresentative GAC have any authority whatsoever to dictate the > > >confiscation of privately run non-US TLD servers by their national > > >governments. Brian Carpenter in particular has no business setting > > >any policy pertaining to ccTLDs, since he is an employee of IBM. > > >That is, unless ICANN is granting IBM policy-making power over > > >non-US TLDs. > > > >Michael, > > > >It has been a long established practice that CC TLD are run for the benefit > >of the citizens of the said country. In all occasions when a dispute > >arised in any given country, the procedure has been to encourage the > >parties to come to an agreement, but to yield to policy decisions of the > >country's government if such agreement could not be found. Some countries > >have decided to farm out the service to a commercial entity, which is > >indeed entirely within their right. However, the "private investors" that > >you mention really operate under a contract or an agreement with the > >country government, whose "bureaucrats" may indeed change their minds over > >time, for example if an election triggers a change of policy. I expect > >that if a dispute arise between a contractor and a government, the dispute > >will be resolved by the legal system of the said country, and that the > >contractor, when they choose to enter in a business agreement with a > >government, de facto accept to comply with the country's laws. > >-- Christian Huitema > > **************************************************************** > 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
