Re: PAB Critics Decry New Net Government

["Rick H. Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>]

Kent,

I would suggest PABers send in their own comments, I don't think
that there is any PAB consensus on the ICANN proposal. I think the
PAB is asleep. Please don't say you are speaking for 230 signaturies.

Scilience is not consent.

-rick

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 11:24:27PM +0200, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > 
> > > PAB:
> > > 
> > [...]
> > .
> > > 
> > > The negative consequence of the ICANN proposal not being accepted is
> > > further delay.  Further delay is bad for the economic health of CORE,
> > > and thus bad for the development of competition in the domain name
> > > system.  So I hope that you will all send supporting notes to NTIA as
> > > quickly as possible.
> > 
> >Kent, I agree with your comments, with the foloowing caveats.
> > 
> >a) I'm not sure PAB has no time to send a support statement. Is anyone agaisnt it?
> 
> I think it would probably be all right to send a generic statement of 
> support for ICANN -- the PAB has consistently supported IANA in the 
> past. Like this:
> 
>   Dear Secretary Daley:
> 
>   The gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body, representing the 230 signatories
>   of the MoU, endorses and supports the ICANN proposal submitted to
>   you by Professor Jon Postel.  It is the proposal that has had by far
>   the widest review, and, though there have been scattered complaints
>   about imperfections, it embodies a structure that can and will be
>   refined over time.
> 
>   The Internet community has been waiting for four years for this to 
>   be resolved.  There is no reason for further delay.  We urge 
>   the NTIA to begin immediate negotiations with ICANN for the 
>   transfer of authority described in the White Paper.
> 
>   Thank you
> 
>   The Policy Advisory Body
> 
> Unless I hear a chorus of complaints real soon, I will send this out 
> today. 
> 
> >B) Even if I'm supposed to be CORE's interest advocate (and I am) I would like
> >pointing that CORE is *not* the main concern when deciding that we need a
> >quick move forward. We cannot afford, as Intenret community, furhter delays,
> >as nay such delays would ony increase the temptations for governments,
> >espcially one of them, to take thinks on hand... with the results we all can
> >imagine. 
> 
> Yes, I agree.  
> 
> >CORE is indeed interested, not only in principle but also financially, in
> >having this moving forward. But it, or at lest most of its members, can stand
> >some delays. The principle of Internet self-regualtion cannot.
> 
> Very well put, Amadeu.
> 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Amadeu
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
>