North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ICANN needs you!

  • From: John Palmer (NANOG Acct)
  • Date: Fri Apr 29 11:35:23 2005

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" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: "Rodney Joffe" <rjoffe@centergate.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>; <brunner@nic-naa.net>
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?
> 
>