There is no ICANN Board, yet. And there won't be one, or at least not one that
we want, if the DNSO constituents aren't members of ICANN, so that tyey can vote
one in.
> Finaly, don't forget that it is precisely the whole NTIA-centered process
> resulting in the White Ppaer that brought us the "Grand Plan" of a
> complicated, expensive and alargely unneeded bureaucracy not only for the DNS,
> but also, and even with less reason, to the IP addresses and protocols areas.
No, it wasn't the NTIA or the White Paper that did that. It was the small group
of people, and especially Joe Sims, that Jon Postel allowed to take charge and
usurp authority from the community as represented by the IFWP. Please don't you
forget that.
> So, once more Michael, we agree on the facts (we both prefer a simpler,
> liathweight, non-incorporated DNSO). But as sometimes happens, we seem to
> disagree on tactics: you are willing to make this into a question of
> pricniples and a test of the relative stenght of CANN and the future DNSO (if
> I read you well), while I am not willing to do it as Istill cnsider the
> incorporation issues relatively secondary.
Not a test of strength between ICANN and the future DNSO. Rather, a question of
what ICANN will be: an organization made up of domain name and address and
protocol interests, or something apart and independent of them. That is the
question here. Your analysis above assumes that ICANN and the DNSO will be
separate; otherwise, how could there be a test of relative strengths? It is just
such competition and conflict that I want to avoid, by not having ICANN and the
DNSO be separate.
> Best regards. And Bon Nadal, if we don't cross any other posting before
> Christmas (whcih seems unlikely, anyway ;-))
Bon nadal i feliz an.