Re: [ga] ICANN Board sells out to US Gov't

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The way I see it is that we do have two separate issues: the statu quo, and 
the policy development process.

While it is true that the statu quo of the WhoIs is that information has to 
be correct and complete, the document quotes at least three times the need 
for a bottom-up policy-making process, and if at the end of this process it 
will come out that the Internet community prefers a different solution, the 
policy will be changed.

This is, at least, my view. I know that there are different opinions on the 
matter.

Regards,
Roberto


> From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Board sells out to US Gov't
> Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:40:49 +1300
>
> At 12:13 p.m. 30/09/2006, Danny Younger wrote:
> > George,
> >
> > I am quite familiar with boths sides of the argument,
> > and I am keenly cognizant of the NTIA view that was
> > recently expressed in the Robert Peterson v. NTIA case
> > regarding anonymization services in the .us namespace.
> >
> > While you and I may start out with different views on
> > the topic, over time it is reasonable to expect that
> > agreement on some points can be reached and that
> > eventually a consensus will emerge (especially as more
> > and more entities have come to respect individual
> > privacy rights and have implemented protocols that
> > still serve the needs of both law enforcement and the
> > intellectual property community).
> >
> > This process, however, has been ripped asunder by the
> > intervention of the USG that chooses not to repect the
> > bottom-up process if it results in determinations that
> > don't accord with the U.S. view.
> >
> > This repeated meddling on the part of a single
> > government is not a "good thing".  Will ICANN be able
> > to develop gTLD policy as it sees fit, or will it
> > constantly need to kowtow to the NTIA?
>
> Danny,
>
> If I understand you well, would you prefer an independent ICANN -as 
> it-is-now?
>
> If ICANN wants to be independent in policy dvelopment, wouldn't it need to 
> create it's own credible Institutions first?
>
> -joop-