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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane and all former DNSO GA members or other interested Parties,

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:39:18PM -0400,
>  L. Gallegos <jandl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
>  a message of 63 lines which said:
>
> > ICANN should also get out of the business management (or
> > micromanagement) and stick to technical.
>
> This is absolutely impossible and let me explain why.
>
> > IANA should be separated from ICANN and should have no bearing on
> > the registries or registrars or ccTLDs other than performing the
> > clerical details - a one person job.
>
> If IANA stays with purely technical jobs (adding or removing a
> nameserver for an existing TLD, adding a protocol number for a new TCP
> service, etc), I agree with you.
>
> But how do you handle non-technical decisions? A few different
> examples:
>
> 1) Who will decide of the redelegation of a ccTLD? Especially in
> complicated cases like a fight between two local groups? This is not a
> clerical process, it is a political one, by essence.

  ccTLD's are the purview of the country in which they are associated
with.  Therefore it is not ICANN's responsibility to decide whom
or what entity should be the stuert of what group or entity is
managing that ccTLD.

>
>
> 2) Who will decide what gTLD to create? (I use ORSC at home and *some*
> new.net dummy domains are integrated in ORSC root, some are not: on
> what grounds? It is a political decision. May be a proper one but
> certainly not purely technical.)

  Also nonsense here as well.  ICANN only needs to add or delete
any gTLD that some organization has decided to create or provide.
Nothing more!

>
>
> 3) Who will decide to recognize (or not) Afrinic as a new RIR?

  Stakeholders/users can by their use and notification jointly
make this decision.  ICANN as an organization need not
involve itself in these sorts of decisions either.

>
> Especially if they do not agree with the rules that were defined for
> the rich countries (such as the minimum allocation criteria)?

  It they do not agree to such minimum allocation criteria
that is first of all because they were not part of deciding
what such minimums should or could be.  Secondly ICANN
has no business what so ever making these decisions for
regions of the globe or other countries without the stakeholders/users
consent and/or agreement as to those practices/policies.

>
>
> [Do note that you can have systems where three different organizations
> decide for these three issues, it only requires a clear delineation of
> their powers.]
>
> Face it: you need a political instance. Now, we can flame each other
> about wether USG, ITU, ORSC or something else is the proper one :-)
> But let's stop that "Stick with technical matters" b...t.

  Well your arguments have been hashed and rehashed many times
on this and other forums.  And as in those instances, they hold no
more relevance than they did than.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801