Re: [ifwp] Re: Time for accommodation

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Milton and all,

Milton Mueller wrote:

> Roberto:
> The situation is very clear. As you note, most people endorsed "ICANN" as the
> *vehicle* for moving forward, because of its association with Postel and the old
> IANA. At the same time, most commentors criticized the *substance* of the ICANN
> draft along lines that were very similar to the amendments proposed by BWG or
> ORSC. There was also a lot of discontent with the interim board of directors,
> relating to both process and specific omissions. (Keep in mind that the BWG
> draft is essentially a set of amendments to the ICANN draft, and that the ORSC
> draft is essentially a set of amendments to the BWG draft.)

  Yes indeed the ORSC and the BWG drafts are essentially amendments tothe ICANN/IANA
Draft-5 proposal.  However our proposal
see: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
is both a revision of the IANA/ICANN and also adding two very essential
sections for improvement to the ICANN/IANA Draft-5 proposal  that have
vastly more support than the ORAC or the BWG drafts have combined.  And
we suspect significantly more support than the ICANN/IANA Draft-5 proposal
has as well.  This is not known however in that the IANA/ICANN has yet to
provide for its basis for its support.  We have however.  >;)

>
>
> USG appears to have read the comments the same way you did and I did. They
> expect to work with ISI to incorporate ICann, but they are not satisfied with
> the draft. They realize that the public comments support the substance of the
> dissenting drafts of BWG and ORSC. This does *not* mean that BWG or ORSC *as
> organizations* have "more" support than ICANN. It means that their proposed
> amendments of the ICANN draft have more support than the unamended draft.

  This is also in doubt as well judging from Eric's post earlier today.  However
ourdraft, see:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
can indeed show greater support and provide documentation for that support.  Not
only is it questionable that the BWG draft in particular questionable as to its
support from the IFWP as it does not provide for a Initial Individual Membership
Organization which was one the consensus of the IFWP (See reports on the
www.ifwp.org site for Geneva and Reston conferences).

> Therefore, ICANN must negotiate with BWG and ORSC as to how it will amend its
> draft.

  Yes, and it must negotiate with us as well.

>
>
> I hope you will support this arrangement.

  In part yes we do.  However you left our draft out as part of you comments
hereMilton.  :|

>
>
> --MM
>
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > MM wrote:
> >         <snip>
> > > To put it more directly, their (BWG and ORSC) criticisms were perceived as
> > > representing a consensus, and the current ICANN draft must be--and will
> > > be--modified to reflect those concerns. If it is not, the USG will not
> > > enter
> > > into a contract with ICANN. It will do it with some other corporation.
> > >
> > I have no idea on what USG thinks and will do.
> > But just by the simple reading of the comments on the dofferent drafts (and
> > the signatures underneath) I tend to doubt that USG can think at BWG+ORSC
> > proposals getting anywhere more support than IANA's one.
> >
> > Let's be clear: I have a lot of sympathy with some items raised by the
> > non-IANA proposals myself, but, as expressed in the comments of the
> > organization I represent, the main issue is whether:
> > (1) to get ICANN up and running and let the Interim Board (monitored by the
> > Internet Community) trim the details, or
> > (2) endlessly discuss about details and delay the process.
> >
> > Even positions that have been presented as anti-IANA because they contain
> > some criticism are stating clearly their support of IANA\s draft over the
> > others.
> > Just one "famous" example: CABASE rightfully observes that there's no
> > representative from Latin America, and that this is a shame (BTW, I agree),
> > but then they express their support of IANA's draft (I agree again - must be
> > my latin blood). The point is made, the future revision (or enlargement) of
> > the Board has to take into account this reality, but the whole process is
> > not jeopardized.
> >
> > > I can assure you that ISI / ICANN / IANA is cooperating fully with those
> > > instructions.
> > >
> > Do you mean that ISI / ICANN / IANA agrees that BWG + ORSC represent a wider
> > consensus than IANA (or at least that it is perceived as representing a
> > wider consensus)?
> >
> > Roberto
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > To view the archive of this list, go to:
> > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
> >
> > To receive the digest version instead, send a
> > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
> >
> > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
> >
> > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> > ___END____________________________________________
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________


Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com