Re: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU Inquiry

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with comments made by Greg and Tony Holmes.

I would suggest that, in reply to question 2.2 ICANN's
Progress, we might add the following:


"It is also worth mentioning the significant increase in

participation of developing regions of the world, in the

ICANN processes. Perhaps the most notable examples

are the two new Regional Internet Registries - LACNIC

(Latin America and Caribbean) and AFRINIC (Africa),

both of which were established after several years of

consensus-based organizational work undertaken by the

stakeholders in these regions."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have some reservations about the text below on the NRO.

Am not too convinced this comment would contribute towards

the aim of reassuring the DoC on the core subject of handing

over the keys to the kingdom. Perhaps it might best be

addressed within the ICANN community, rather than

red-flagging it in this context?



"The introduction of the NRO, replacing the ASO as the focal point for

IP addressing issues, has replaced a body where global policy issues

could be raised and discussed by direct representation through elected

representatives, with an organization that is dominated and directly 
controlled
by the RIRs management teams. This has been one of the most negative steps

that came about through the ICANN reform process and the implications of

this should be reassessed.

The ISP community believes that ICANN must take time for a complete

re-evaluation of its relationship with the NRO during the 24 month

transition period."


Regards

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>
To: <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>; <mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>; <olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <yukari@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU Inquiry


> Greg
> I support your sentiments on the RS operations (I also like 'tragic
> attempt' but 'misguided' is far more diplomatic though not so
> explanatory, so suggest we make that change).
>
> I hope more comments will be forthcoming from others, or is Mark's draft
> so good that it's supported in its totality?
>
> If so - great job Mark!
>
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Greg Ruth
> Sent: 14 July 2006 14:35
> To: mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx;
> olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Yukari Takayama
> Subject: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU
> Inquiry
>
> Mark (et al),
>     I like your draft. We might replace "tragic attempt" with
> "misguided attempt" - although I can think of other, more juicy
> adjectives ;-)
>     If we would like to comment on the unsatisfactory informality of
> current arrangements with root server operators, may I suggest
> something like the following:
>
> The current administration of the DNS root depends on distributed and
> redundant operation of the root name servers by a dozen independent
> organizations.  Although this system's performance has been acceptable
> to date, it is remarkable that it is based entirely on informal
> agreements with the operators.  This threatens to undermine the
> credibility of ICANN as a legitimate, responsible custodian of the DNS.
> The DNS has become vital to international electronic communication and
> commerce and the root is the lynchpin of the entire system.  Surely
> more business-like arrangements are called for in order to ensure the
> stability and security of the DNS root in the future.  If ICANN is to
> convince the international community that it is competent and worthy of
> the authority it bears, it must operate in a more professional fashion.
>
>
> Feel free to change this in any way you like to make it fit into the
> document.  Comments?
>
> Greg
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com