Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@xxxxxxxxx>]

Karl,

I'm not at all surprised at the back door management theory, but a little 
surprised that they would be present at the hearing.  It's a bit of a give 
away, isn't it?

Your testimony somewhat suggests hopefullness where PT is concerned, but I 
think it more likely that your concerns in this post are more likely 
closer to reality.

I thought your written testimoy was right on target  and a good analysis, 
especially with regard to the IP allocation and relationship of IANA/RIRs 
to ICANN. The RIRs, IMO, should be left to do their job and IANA should be 
a separate entity, not under control of ICANN in any manner.   It's just a 
crying shame that it is likely that nothing will come of it.  The panel 
was a stacked deck, as usual, and questions put to the panelists did not 
lend anything to confidence that the Senators even have a clue as to the 
real issues.  Same ole, same ole.

I'm glad your testimony is in the record.  At least it is something that 
can be referred to for the "I told you so" when ICANN totally screws the 
internet for users.  

Thank you very much for all of your efforts to regain some sanity in this 
mess.  I just wish there were at least ten of you. :)

Regards,

Leah

On 4 Aug 2003 at 11:54, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> 
> > Personal summary and comments on five testimonies, presented in the US
> > Senate on 31 July 2003, cf.
> > http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=889
> 
> My own hearing materials are not yet up on the committee's web site - I
> only got them in at the last minute.  (But, considering that some of my
> material was quoted by Senator Burns, it apparently was read. ;-)
> 
> Pending the posting on the committee site, my own materials are online at:
> 
>  http://www.cavebear.com/rw/senate-july-31-2003.htm
> 
> (There are other hearing related materials posted on my blog via
> 
>  http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog/
> 
> most particularly at http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000046.html
> and the three items that follow.)
> 
> One of the things that was not visible to those not physically present was
> the set of putatively ex-ICANNites who were there.  I am becoming
> increasinly concerned that ICANN has a shadow management that is still
> deeply involved and still dictates ICANN staff decisions and attitudes. 
> This does not bode well for Paul Twomey's chance to break with ICANN's
> past.
> 
>   --karl--
> 
> 
> 
>