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@bt.com> To: <greg_ruth@yahoo.com>; <mcfadden@21st-century-texts.com>; <ispcp@icann.org>; <olivier.muron@orange-ft.com>; <yukari@nic.ad.jp> 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ruth Sent: 14 July 2006 14:35 To: mcfadden@21st-century-texts.com; ispcp@icann.org; olivier.muron@orange-ft.com; 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