Re: [ga] .us Policy Council

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

  I agree with your analysis of Richards comment/remarks/conclusions
to which you specifically took deference with.  But I believe Richard is

a good fellow and indeed has the stakeholders/users interest at hart.  I

also believe he has in fact argued himself in a large circle as well as
you point out, Eric.  I believe Richard is indirectly referring to NGO's

taking over for DOC/NTIA and ICANN, such as the ITU, UNESCO,
WGIG, WSIS, ect...  I believe as do many or our members what
Richard seems to be indirectly proposing is akin to jumping from
the frying pan into the fire.  Given some of these NGO's histories,
especially those or UN organizational membership, to suggest
and/or argue in favor for many of such NGO's to supplant
the DOC/NTIA is not reasonable nor tenable.  Hence unlikely
to occur.

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    The portion I snipped I am pretty much in agreement on as for any
> type of security rationale it makes little to no difference that we
> invade the privacy and make these things public. In California the
> Drivers License data is only public to those with a legitimate
> justification for knowing, and it certainly does not hamper the police
> in knowing.
>
> As for this part I left intact I think there is a major problem. While
> we all have distrust for the government and "politician" this is
> exactly what we need in DNS Oversight. People that get elected by the
> people are in fact politicians who have a right to govern. Here we are
> governed by those we cannot elect. If the at large were allowed to
> work appropriately and there was membership voting rights in ICANN,
> then the people running for office would in fact be politicians that
> we would elect. Legitimate governments actually work this way and are
> far better than the elitist rulers we have today. I am afraid you
> cannot ask for no politics and yet demand it at the same time.
> I think what you really are saying is that we do not want bureaucrats
> running the DNS or at least we want our bureaucrats running the DNS.
>
> Eric
>
> Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> .<snip>
>
> It is for reasons such as these that government and politicians should
> be
> kept out of DNS oversight; and it is exactly for these reasons that
> ICANN
> should attempt to legitimise its mandate by breaking loose of NTIA/DOC
> and
> seeking instead to build a structure based on open consultation and
> the
> worldwide endorsement of internet users.
> <snip>
> Yrs,
>
> Richard H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams"
> To: "Richard Henderson"
> Cc: "General Assembly of the DNSO" ; "Danny Younger"
>
> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] .us Policy Council
>
>
> > Richard and all former DNSO GA members or other interestes
> > stakeholders/users,
> >
> > Well Richard, in the USA, we have a fairly new broadly encompassing
> > law enforcement tool put into effect sense 9/11 called the Patriot
> Act.
> > As such and to many Americans chagrin, due process has been all
> > but eliminated.
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827