North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: ICANN needs you!
How about supporting alternatives to ICANN, which are getting more and more widespread and accepted like www.public-root.com and www.inaic.com ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <email@example.com> To: "Rodney Joffe" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 8:12 AM Subject: Re: ICANN needs you! > > Rodney, > > Can you compare the past out-reach exercises and the present one? > You know, process and outcomes. > > I'm thinking of the process and outcome of the MITF exercise of 2002/3. > > It is now seven years since the issue of appropriation of tribal names > was brought to the attention of the ICANN BoD in an ICANN VI-B(3)(b)(7) > Constituency Application. The situation remains unchanged. On a personal > note, I still recall then-CEO Michael Roberts telling me to just take what > the IPC offered (nothing), as the ICANN bus was leaving the station. > > It is now six years since the issue of code point allocation by the iso3166 > maintenance agency and indigenous governments was brought to the attention > of the ICANN BoD in WG-C (draft-icann-dnso-wgc-naa-01.txt). The situation > remains unchanged. > > The model of an sTLD was adopted, but sex.pro was not what we'd in mind. > > Had Jon not died, we might have had a solution along the lines of x.121 > (and now ASO RIRs) regional DSO registries, or a .ps-like work-around. > > We going on the third year of .iq being dark, with no trust operator, and > no contact initiated by ICANN with the Sponsoring Organization, still in > a US pokey for an exports infraction (they freighted a PC to Malta, which > the forwarding agent then sent to Lybia, and may have freighted a PC to > Syria, about an hour's drive from Beruit). From Louis to the BoD @ Rome > to Vint and Paul over the winter holidays, ICANN has been aware and the > situation remains unchanged. > > The .ORG evaluation was rediculous. The evaluator was not independent > or posses subject matter expertise. > > The .NET evaluation was rediculous. The evaluator ... ditto. > > The control of the DSO et seq by the IPC ("whois") is rediculous. > > The vanishing of the ISP Constituency (self-inflicted, but rational in > the context, see the prior item) is rediculous. > > When I look at my years of non-accomplishment, and ICANN's years of little > accomplishment, I don't see a lot a rational person could take a lot of > pride in, or want to be associated with. Your milage may vary. > > You are correct that "[t]he archives of NANOG are riddled with complaints > and comments about the lack of competent representation and influence for > the networking community within ... ICANN." > > An alternative to asking for a new crop of possibly decorative worker bee > candidates to self- or other-identify for a possibly decorative nomination > and selection process is to identify one of more of those existing "complaints > and comments" and attempt to act upon it or them. > > Beauty pagents and member pageout events aren't the same as working a task > to a scheduled completion. > > Cheers, > Eric > > P.S. If discussion of the latest ICANN process event does not belong on > NANOG, does its announcement? > >