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

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, L. Gallegos wrote:

> Your testimony somewhat suggests hopefullness where PT is concerned

Yes, I am very hopeful that Paul will make a difference.  Also the new
board members are really quite good - as were many of the lesser mentioned
prior board members - my concern is that they will not utilize their
strengths and, like their predecessors, relinquish control to management
rather than keeping it on a track of the Board's own design (or rather, a 
track developed by the net community and adopted by the board.)

> 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.

Thanks.  And I very much agree with your formulation - it is in tune with 
what I proposed way back when - http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm

> ...that the Senators even have a clue as to the real issues.

Actually I disagree.  Yes, the Senators themselves are often able only to 
focus on the outermost skin of issues.  But Senators have staff support - 
usually pretty good staff support.  And I can tell you that those folks do 
read, watch, and comprehend much of what happens.  But remember, Congress 
is a collegial body - it acts in as a unit and not by individuals.  So it 
can take a long time for it to do anything.

Moreover, as has become apparent, ICANN's own actions over the last few
years have resulted in its power being pretty much confined to the DNS 
space.  And as many observers have observed (that being what observers do) 
that the facility of DNS as a directory is being much eroded by search 
technology.

		--karl--