RE: [ga]

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Debbie and all,

Responses are interspersed below.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 29, 2007 5:38 AM
>To: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, 'Danny Younger' <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: 'Roberto Gaetano' <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, froomkin@xxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ga] "the fact that the Board does not pay attention"
>
>Jeff wrote: 
>
>>   I strongly believe there are two big problems ICANN is 
>> facing which I am fairly sure these new "RALO's" with these 
>> "new people" which Vini seems so enamored with is many more 
>> failing registrars, and some additional failing registries in 
>> which as Danny rightly points out there is no archived 
>> registrant data done, leading to small business failures 
>> galore, or  by the hundreds of thousands.
>
>Do you have reports and statistics to back this up Jeff?
 
 The reports posted to this list regarding RegistryFly, and
our INEgroup internal reports are all that is avaliable.
I have given all of those reports that have been published
already on this very list, see archives.
>> 
>>   Building an archive for these registrars registry data is 
>> very easy to do and only a little bit more difficult to 
>> secure.  I have done literally hundreds of them for different 
>> type and more verbose data bases.
>
>What is the cost/benefit ratio?  Who should be responsible for the cost?
>How can this be presented to ICANN in such a way as to influence new policy?

  The responsibility is between ICANN and the registries and/or
registrars as is appropriate.  Cost benifit is irrelevant largly as
the Data retention act requires retention of this sort of data.
>
>> The second is IP address registry data.  What is known and 
>> rarely discussed on this forum, is that very few RIR's and 
>> nearly no LIR's have any IP registry data archived.  This is 
>> entirely irresponsible and can be even more devastating as 
>> network connectivity on a large scale can be severely 
>> interrupted for a significant period of time.
>> ICANN and the 
>> IANA haven't addressed this one in any tangible way at all.  
>> However I am sure if .GOV connectivity via IP, were corrupted 
>> or interrupted, ICANN's tit would be in a very tight ringer.  
>> And it's going to happen, and sooner rather than later.
>
>Is there published eveidence of this happening? Please provide links in
>order that we may better understand the problem. How can policy be formed to
>address this?

Yes.  Links have already been provided from time to time 
on this forum by myself and on lessor occasion by Karl and
Jefsey.  Again see archives.  Otherwise, one may also review
archives of the mailing lists of the RIR's Nanog, and Sans
for other independant non biased information accordingly.
>
>Best regards
>
>Debbie 
>>   Instead, ICANN and the GNSO is more interested in 
>> discussing "RALO's" rather than doing it's primary functions.
>> 
>> 
>> Danny Younger wrote:
>> 
>> > Roberto,
>> >
>> > Over the years the Board has been often warned about 
>> matters such as 
>> > the lack of registrant data escrow services, about registrar 
>> > circumvention of consensus policies, about the lack of competitive 
>> > choice in the RGP cycle, about the folly of creating a defacto 
>> > registry/registrar guild, about deficient accreditation 
>> practices that 
>> > led to the creation of hundreds of phantom registrars, etc. etc.
>> >
>> > The GA has served as an early warning system exposing the 
>> the flaws in 
>> > current ICANN policies, but apparently it takes a major 
>> disaster such 
>> > as the Registerfly debacle for the Board to realize that the GA has 
>> > been on target while the Board and Staff have been asleep at the 
>> > wheel.
>> >
>> > If the Board has chosen not to pay attention to those that 
>> endeavor to 
>> > help safeguard the future of the DNS, then they are 
>> exercising their 
>> > fiduciary responsibilities in a truly delinquent manner.
>> >
>> > We can't gloss over issues that you regard as "long closed" 
>> because we 
>> > see a Board that has been derelict in its duty to the community.  
>> > Eliminating all at-large directors pushed the pendulum too 
>> far in the 
>> > wrong direction.  The White Paper warned of the potential 
>> for capture 
>> > by a self-interested faction, and indeed ICANN has been captured by 
>> > those with little regard for the public interest element.
>> >
>> > Now the public interest considerations are beginning to 
>> bite ICANN in 
>> > the butt as inattention to this factor has commanded the world's 
>> > attention.
>> >
>> > Issues aren't closed just because the Board says they are closed.
>> >
>> > The Board has made a number of bad decisions ranging from its 
>> > manhandling of the at-large community to shafting the registrant 
>> > community with unwarranted price increases.
>> >
>> > Don't expect us to forget these insults just because the Board has 
>> > moved on to other issues.
>> >
>> > Wrongs must be corrected.
>> >
>> > --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Michael Froomkin wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > As for the RALOs they're so far from the Board's
>> > > ear that one
>> > > > wonders whether anyone takes them seriously or if
>> > > they're
>> > > > just there to let ICANN insiders bamboozle the
>> > > press.  There
>> > > > is no constitutency now represented in ICANN that
>> > > would ever
>> > > > settle for such poor representation.  The day
>> > > that, say,
>> > > > businesses, who also number in the millions, are
>> > > asked to
>> > > > organzie along the same lines is the day that I'll
>> > > start to
>> > > > take RALO's seriously.
>> > >
>> > > I would like to offer a different perspective.
>> > > Businesses belong to the Business Constituency of the GNSO. That 
>> > > constituency is one of the 6 in the Council. In the Name 
>> Council you 
>> > > have also the NomCom representatives, and two constituencies 
>> > > (Registries and
>> > > Registrars) have weighted voting.
>> > > So, they count in the Council for slightly more than 10% of the 
>> > > voting.
>> > > The current GNSO-elected Board Directors come from the IPC and 
>> > > Registrars, and the former came from NCUC. Previous 
>> Directors also 
>> > > came, if I am not mistaken, from IPC or Registrars. So 
>> the Business 
>> > > Constituency as such has zero power on the Board.
>> > > The ALAC, on the contrary, has a non-voting Liaison.
>> > > Although the Liaison
>> > > does not have a vote, I can assure you, for having been 
>> ALAC Liaison 
>> > > for 3+ years, that his/her voice is heard and taken into 
>> account. In 
>> > > simple words, the Liaison does not have the power of voting, but 
>> > > does have the power of directly influencing, during Board 
>> meetings. 
>> > > Of course, if the Liaison is only complaining and 
>> bitching, he/she 
>> > > will no longer be listened to, while if he/she is available to 
>> > > debate in a civilized way, there is wide room for being 
>> able to have 
>> > > ALAC's points of view taken into account in shaping the final 
>> > > decision.
>> > >
>> > > On the same line of reasonment, maybe we could wonder 
>> whether there 
>> > > is a correlation between the fact that most of what goes 
>> on now in 
>> > > the GA is complaining or resuscitating issues that are 
>> long closed 
>> > > and the fact that the Board does not pay attention. Or 
>> whether there 
>> > > is a correlation between the fact that whenever somebody new does 
>> > > not conform to the groupthink he/she gets attacked and 
>> the fact that 
>> > > very few newcomers resist in the GA for long.
>> > >
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Roberto
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ______________________
>> > Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small 
>> Business gives you all the tools to get online.
>> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
>> 
Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827