RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Danny,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
I and others in the WG have asked that the allocation methods you
referenced&nbsp;be removed. Allocation was not part of the WG terms of work and&nbsp;it is inappropriate to include&nbsp;suggested allocation&nbsp;methods.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
And I do want to ensure you&nbsp;that&nbsp;the sub-group members working
on that report are not working in a vacuum.&nbsp;All of the&nbsp;reports, including&nbsp;any straw recommendations,&nbsp;are dicussed&nbsp;fully and edited&nbsp;by the entire&nbsp;WG. <BR></div>
<div><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction<BR>From: Danny Younger &lt;dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Thu, March 08, 2007 7:19 am<BR>To: Stephane Bortzmeyer &lt;bortzmeyer@xxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Stephane,<BR><BR>My immediate concerns:<BR><BR>(1) Technical considerations (such as those posted by<BR>John Klensin) seem to have been given short shrift by<BR>the SubGroup.<BR>(2) SubGroup allocation recommendations have not been<BR>thought through well, nor have all available options<BR>been explored (as these other options would not fit<BR>within the self-serving agenda of the SubGroup<BR>members).<BR>(3) Introducing half-baked allocation recommendations<BR>into the tail end of a PDP process that has dragged on<BR>for well over a year is comparable to stuffing a<BR>1000-page appropriations bill with last minute<BR>measures !
 -- this is not how we should be producing<BR>good policy.<BR><BR><BR>--- Stephane Bortzmeyer &lt;bortzmeyer@xxxxxx&gt; wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:35:18PM -0800,<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;Danny Younger &lt;dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx&gt; wrote
<BR>&gt; &nbsp;a message of 71 lines which said:<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; These recommendations should be thrown into the<BR>&gt; trash,<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Why? There were absolutely no reasons to reserve<BR>&gt; these<BR>&gt; names. Therefore, there are no reasons to keep them<BR>&gt; frozen.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I am under the strong feeling that some people will<BR>&gt; refuse anything<BR>&gt; coming from ICANN. Most of the time, ICANN is<BR>&gt; accused of regulating<BR>&gt; too much. And now that a report suggest to loosen<BR>&gt; the grip,<BR>&gt; always-complainers regret the old restriction?<BR>&gt; <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________________________________<BR>Get your own web address. &nbsp;<BR>Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.<BR>http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>