[At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Danny and all,

  I guess cross posting to seperate list is now
exceptable.  So as such, I am relpying-all accordingly.

  I agree with all the points Danny has made here. Or
were these originally from Chris? In either case, I
fully agree.  Many if not the vast majority of our members
from time to time have expressed pretty much the same,
accordingly.  

  What does all of this tell us?  Well I have a few
suggestions.

1.)  ICANN isn't really all that concerned or interested
     in registrants or non-registrant/users issues regardless
     of their country of origin.

2.)  DOC/NTIA is interested, but must work in conjunction
     with ICANN staff and Board members to assist in resolving
     such issues unless they are extreamly egregious, such as
     the .XXX TLD became.

3.)  It does abundantly appear that Registries and Registrars
     carry far more weight in decision making for policy determination.

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Blogs.pn" <namecritic at blogs.pn>
>Sent: Apr 3, 2008 8:07 AM
>To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>, ga at gnso.icann.org
>Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement
>
>Why do all of these announcements and such include things like the following.
>
>the recognition that ICANN is the appropriate technical coordinator of the Internet DNS.  when ICANN does not stick to doing this and instead gets into areas such as examining business plans when a new TLD is proposed?
>
>ICANN has made significant progress in several key areas, when no one can really point to several key areas in which progress has been made?
>
>And then they write as if they have confidence in the following;
>
>long term stability; when ICANN has not implemented much of a long-term strategy so far?
>
>accountability; when ICANN has not held anyone accountable before? and when ICANN BoD and staff are not held accountable?
>
>responsiveness; when ICANN takes years to respond to any issue?
>
>continued private sector leadership, when ICANN defines this as doing whatever businesses like Verisign tell them to do?
>
>stakeholder participation; when ICANN defines stakeholders as only large companies, ISPs, and registries and not as lowly domain holders and average users?
>
>increased contract compliance; when ICANN folds on contracts anytime they are threatened with a lawsuit? See the Verisign lawsuit for an example.
>
>and enhanced competition. when ICANN does everything they can to assure their is no real competition in namespace?
>
>Chris McElroy
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
>To: <ga at gnso.icann.org>
>Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:01 PM
>Subject: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement
>
>
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html
>> 
>> 
>>      Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827