Michael,
>On behalf of the Electronic Commerce Forum e.V., which is a signatory to
>the gTLD MoU and of which I am the chairman, I have to disagree.
Of course you have the right to... but what is it exactly you disagree with ?
>To avoid, what you characterized as "making noise" in your offending mail
>regarding those within the IFWP Steering Committee, which are supporting
>the meeting which is to be organized by the Berkman Center (and this
>includes me, my association, and the European Internet Service Providers
>Association), I refrain from posting my disagreement to the PAB list.
You don't have to. My response does come to the list in which the message
was originated (and from which it should have never left).
>To make this very clear, however: I very well understand the role of IANA
>and support any reasonable articles and bylaws. Nevertheless, I stick to
>what I posted to the IFWP-SC's list. A further meeting appears necessary as
>the proposals for articles and bylaws published by
>* IANA
I have not read here that you object to anything in those bylaws as
contrary to consensus.
>* NSI (the latter cannot be ignored only because it has been published by
>what you obviously consider to be the devil's advocate or the devil itself)
No, just a company that has to defend its private economical interests,
which, I find, are quite different from those of the rest of the Internet
Community. That is why, in a great PR move they proposed something that
seemed to agree with consensus while:
- Allowing the board to be captured by one single company (by becoming a
proxy to single user's votes.. guess who has over 2.000.000 of these
customers and could reach an agreement with them...).
- Making the Names council a voluntary work group, of ANY size, making sure
that no policy would ever be made by this council that could bother them.
- Asking for 50% of a very large membership as quorum to change this bylaws
(impossible to change bylaws).
But consensus in Buenos Aires now has it that the above are not acceptable.
There is no reason why the Internet Community should make an exception for
the economical interests of one single company.
>* the consensus reached in the previous IFWP-conferences,
There is no third set of bylaws. We have not produced such a thing and we
will not do it, as it is not in the scope of the mandate of the IFWP.
>do not yet converge to a sufficient extent.
Of course not. IANA cannot write bylaws to defend NSi's economical
interests, and the IFWP's bylaws do not exist (that I know of).
Can you name where the IANA bylaws contradict IFWP consensus ?
>Btw. of closing let me point out this as well: Given this email, there is
>of course no longer "unanimous support" for your proposal.
I did not expect it... but in PAB we tend to work on consensus...
Javier
>Regards,
>Michael
>
>At 14:39 30.08.98 +0000, you wrote:
>
>>PAB,
>>
>>Here is a proposal for supporting IANA. Please comment on it very quickly
>>(language and spelling included), as it needs to be sent almost immediately.
>>
>>Javier
>>
>>The Policy Advisory Body (PAB), created by the signature of the Generic Top
>>Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding and now including more than 200
>>companies and associations from all around the world, would like to comment
>>on the Third Iteration of the Bylaws for the New IANA published by IANA.
>>
>>The IFWP process, has, for the last two months, brought together a
>>significant number of stakeholders of the Internet from around the world.
>>The participants do not represent, by far, the whole of the Community of
>>Internet Users, but their participation has permitted discussing some of
>>the most important issues regarding the re-engineering of IANA.
>>
>>As Tamar Frankel -leader of the IFWP- demanded, consensus search has been
>>carried out in small break-out sessions, not in the plenary sessions of
>>this meetings, so that we could talk about work-in-progress, and not
>>consensus of the Internet Community, which would have been false.
>>
>>In spite of this, many of the results of the IFWP seem to reflect clear
>>consensus of the Internet Community, and -we believe- have been correctly
>>understood by IANA and incorporated in the Third Iteration of the Bylaws.
>>
>>In some other issues, the Consensus is not that clear. One of them is the
>>type of membership that this organisation will have, a key issue, as any
>>non-profit corporation must have members. Almost everybody seems to agree
>>that membership organisations should participate in the New IANA as
>>members. We support this view. There are opinions in the sense that
>>"anybody" could become a member, but this opens the organisation to
>>"capture" by a powerful company with many customers, specially if voting
>>through proxies is allowed. The model developed for PAB, which seems to
>>work quite well, does not allow individual members, and we think it could
>>be applied to the New IANA. The participation of specific companies should
>>be analysed very carefully, specially if members are a primary source of
>>financial stability for the New IANA. None of the funds received by the
>>organisation may have any strings attached, nor the possibility of
>>attaching them later.
>>
>>We encourage IANA to continue with their work towards re-engineering its
>>structures to fit into a non-profit organisation that will -in a fair way-
>>regulate and manage the common resources of the Internet.
>>
>>Javier
>
>--
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Michael Schneider Chairman, eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V. |
> | Director, Regulation and Selfregulation EuroISPA |
> | Chairman, Complaint Commission of the German |
> | c/o Multimedia-Service-Providers Hotline |
> | Michael Schneider & Partners Law Firm, Phone: +49 2242 9270-0 |
> | Dickstrasse 35, D-53773 Hennef Michael.Schneider@Anwalt.DE |
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:34 PST