Re: [atlarge-discuss] U.S. Will Renew ICANN's Authority

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Vittorio and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:53:36 EDT, you wrote:
>
> >The U.S. government will renew a California nonprofit's authority to manage
> >the Internet's global addressing system, a top Commerce Department official
> >said today.
>
> Oh well - looks like "plan A" will be a complete failure.

  Id does?  Hummm?  To early yet to tell IMHO.  Of course given
your positions with the ICANN BoD and staff it is understandable
that you might wish such was the case.

> Now, would anyone
> consider working a little more strictly with the present ICANN?

  Is this your idea of plan B?  Sure, we should work with ICANN
where we can ethically do so in line with the MoU and White Paper.
Otherwise, we should stay independent.

> This doesn't
> mean that we have to stop our efforts - for example, this press release
> might simply be a "ballon d'essai" to see how hard reactions are, so we
> should definitely react to it with some complaining letter to Ms. Victory -
> but this shows even more that the idea of the USG stepping in to grant more
> democracy in ICANN is likely to be proven false, as I have been saying for
> the last two months.

 Nancy J Victory may or may not be helpful.  She also may or may not
be in the position that she is in presently long either.  None the less
to capitulate or relegate to something that is not ethical, is not the
answer either.  I say stay the course, but excellerate that course
with all due haste.

>
>
> So, we do have to keep with our plans, but we cannot refuse the fact that
> ICANN (unless some very unlikely sudden changes) will still be keeping the
> strings of the DNS at least for the next year, and possibly forever.

  ICANN presently does not control more than half of the ccTLD's,
and other registries.  More registries outside of ICANN's direct
control or even influence are slowly but surely emerging, as is IPv8.
Hence, it seems odd that your would purport such a idea in reality
at this time.  Perhaps you have an ulterior motive Vittorio?

>
>
> (Ah - on icannwatch someone said that if the USG won't do it, then we should
> ask the ITU. Don't even think at it... the ITU is even more business- and
> government-controlled than the present ICANN.)

  Agreed here...

>
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de