| carl@oppedahl.com May we see NSI's SRS specs? First_Name: Carl Last_Name: Oppedahl Company_Name: Oppedahl & Larson LLP The latest NSI contract says "By November 1, 1998, NSI shall provide functional and interface specifications for the Shared Registration System and a milestone schedule for its development and implementation. " NSI says it provided the spec, but refuses to let the Internet Community see the spec. Will ICANN permit the Internet Community see the spec that NSI provided? |
| dcrocker@brandenburg.com Scope and Focus First_Name: Dave Last_Name: Crocker Company_Name: Brandenburg Consulting The way to get work done is to do work. The way to establish trust is to do good work. Please resist the requests for constantly re-starting and re-targeting, and re-defining goals, structures, processes and participation . Internet work has always depended on a balance of people, as well as principles. Please resist the requests to view this as Internet governance. The task of IANA has only and always been one of straightforward administration. (The goal has always been straightforward, but of course doing the WORK well has almost never been.) ICANN has the job of continuing IANA's work. Please do tha and ONLY that. This process has gone on for more than 4 years. It began with the purpose of producing additional name space and introducing competition for the registration of names. Users have been prevented from obtaining these benefits for more than 4 years. The scope of the work was expanded to be privatization of IANA. It is of direct benefit to a few parties to cause delay. It is direct detriment to users to continue that delay. Please find a way to end the delay. d/ |
| ooblick@netpolicy.com Problem with SOs deciding policy First_Name: Mikki Last_Name: Barry Company_Name: Domain Name Rights Coalition The major current problem with Support Organizations deciding policies such as domain name issues, is that the current structure allows the SOs to not only decide the policy, but to also elect 1/2 of the Board, thus implementing their policies without appropriate oversite. This is a serious shortcoming. I recommend that the board election function to be removed from the Support Organizations. If the Board is to be fully transparent, it would behoove it to start with full disclosure on how it was nominated, by whom, and how it was "elected." If they do not start off as transparent from the "get go" they will have difficulty claiming transparency in the future. ICANN should not become involved with these conflicts. ICANN is not a governance body. That being said, ICANN MAY decide to become unfortunately entangled with issues that are beyond its charter and its intentions. Perhaps the greatest example is in the area of domain name/trademark issues. The Internet is primarily a medium of communication, of which commerce is a subset. An important subset, but a subset nonetheless. ICANN should not, under any circumstances, become involved with deciding which uses of the Internet are more important than others. Specifically, trademark holders should have no greater rights on the Internet than they do in any other medium. Waiting periods are unduly burdensome for a medium that is as instantaneous as the Internet. Burdens placed on those wishing to register a domain name that are greater than those wishing to register business names, or "screen names" or other names by which communication is maintained are patently unfair. Do not fall into this trap. Let the registrars and registries decide their own policies in accordance with existing national laws (which already favor trademark holders). |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Trust, Honesty and Accountability First_Name: Jeff Last_Name: Williams Company_Name: INEG.INC. Why was this boston meeting schedualed for only one day? Will there be meetings in Canada, Central America, south america, and more than one in asia? If not, why not? Will any of the "Trraditional Internet organizations", (ie. IETF, ISOC, IAB, IESG, ect) be "Mapped" into the Supporting organization structure of the ICANN's November 6th Bylaws? If so, what is the justification or such a consideration specificaly? Also, what will be the method of determination for ANY Internet organization to be considered for membership as one ot the supporting organizations? In what specific ways does the ICANN latest bylaws meet the "Botton up" Stakeholder determined requirnment of the White paper? What is the criteria used by the ICANN INterim board for that determination? Was there a vote? What and where are the bonafides? Or what other legaly excepted or established method was used to make this claim in those November 6th ICANN INterim Board bylaws? When will the ICANN Interim board provide their bonafides as the "Consensus of the Stakeholders" claim mentioned in the Novenber 6th letter to the NTIA and Becky Burr, be provided for public review, as required in the White Paper? It has been reported from several sources that Mike roberts "Self Appointed" or recomended himself to be a ICANn INterim Board member? Is this just a vicious rumor, or is there some truth to these reports? To Mike Roberts and the ICANN Interim Board: In a very brief conversation that I had on the phone with Mike Robets, he stated "I don't deal with setting up additional meetings"(refering to additional ICANN meetings other than those already known). If this is so, why not? And who does? How does the ICANN INterim Board justify having "Private" Conversations dealing with matters of the Bylaws and ICANN structure with the ORSC and BWG only in light of the White Paper requirnment or openness, Transparency, and accountability? Public statements from Esther Dyson regarding how Esther Dyson and Linda Wilson were selected are not a matter of public record. How does this "jive" with Esther Dyosn's letter to the NTIA and Becky Burr where she states the the Board was "Elected"? When are the rest of the ICANN Interim Board,( 7 remaining I believe), going to "Come clean" on how the were selected to thICANN Interim Board? Is there any truth to Jim Dixon's November 10ths posting to the IFWP E-Mail list regarding some decisions on the "Names" supporting organization (DNSO) have already been made? After having private conversations/Negotiations outside of the public eye, on what foundation does the ICANN Interim Board expect any stakeholde /user to trust this board in the future? Will there be some written Legaly documented guarentee's? If so, in what form? If not, why not? Is there some reasonable explination why this boston meeting was not covered live on CNN, CNBC, TNT, or any other broadcast network? Where does the ICANN Interim Board believe that the majority majority of the accountability, as part of the structure of the ICANN, when formed compleatly, lie? Who will decide what the proper membership structure is, when determined? What is the justification for the ICANN Interim board to have absolute control over the articles and sections in ANY set of bylaws? Who made the final determination on the selection of the ICANN INterim Board? Will the membership organization when formed, have final approval by vote of the final draft of the ICANN Bylaws? With the reasonable understanding that when putting together a Interim Board, it is wise and prudent to find individuals of best leadership quality and a divergance of experiance that is related to the type of company being formed. However, many of the ICANN Interim Board members have little or no specific leadership background in specific to the internet. How does the ICANN Interim Board intend to deal with this perception/fact? How does the November 6th letter to the NTIA from Esther Dyson to Becky Burr, jive or fulfill the concerns of the OCT 20th letter from Becky Burr to the ICANN INterim Board? To all members of the ICANN Interim Board: When will comments, as requested, sent via e-mail be responded to DIRECTLY? |