Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Mr. Lynn,

You are creating the appearance of insincerity.

In California law they have a model of P&As.  This roughly translates out to 1.
your point, 2. your authority for said point & 3. Your argument for said point.
Please provide us with such an IRAC model.  You are dealing with very technical
policy issues here and failure to be precise is insincere.

Besides that, you are pissing me and my dot commoner friends off, (they live in
Texas, Uruguay, Leon, China, Chicago, Russia, Singapore and Vietnam, the Outback,
Siberia and Sweden and Paris and London and Zurich- they are shoeshine boys and
doctors and taxicab drivers and terrorists and politicians Generals and privates,
they are women and children and husbands and grandparents) by making policy
behind our backs and then presenting it to us. Is Andrew screening your emails?
We make policy from the bottoms up and you enforce it.  Start getting that
straight or I will no longer act in such a gentlemanly manner.

You are talking here to the General Assembly, perhaps the greatest grouping of
caring individuals that has been ammassed since ever * made possible by the
internet*. Do you want me to list the names of the witnesses and participants?
Your brain trust would and surely will lose should you chose to defy our
collective wisdom.

Sincerely,
Eric

ps. for all those who may take offense, sorry.

"M. Stuart Lynn" wrote:

> I understand and welcome your views, Brett, But I could not disagree more.
>
> ICANN has many policies that are embodied in our charter documents
> that have not been separately and explicitly codified in a single
> policy document. For example, we have a policy derived from those
> documents that commit us to further the stability of the Internet.
> There has been no bottom-up process to codify that - except as was
> embodied in the founding of ICANN and in the finalization of those
> documents.
>
> When there are important issues on the table, I will continue to
> summarize existing policies that may be embodied in those documents
> and elsewhere (including those that have been explicitly stated) and
> articulate them for the community. Particularly - as in this case -
> when I receive enquiries as to what our policy on a given topic may
> be. That is part of my job. This is no different than our restatement
> of IANA policies in ICP-1.
>
> Articulating existing policies is very different from creating new
> policy. That requires consensus-based approaches. And I do not think
> any of us disagree on that.
>
> I think we all understand our difference of views on this subject,
> and I doubt we will persuade each other. So it may be best to move
> on. But I will look forward to your specific comments.
>
> With regards
> Stuart
>
> At 9:45 AM -0700 6/15/01, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >The merits of the relative positions aside, I am concerned about a practice
> >of drafting papers outside ICANN's rigorous bottom-up, policy development
> >processes, calling it an attempt to codify existing policy, and then
> >challenging anyone to go through the rigorous bottom-up, policy development
> >process to change it.
> >
> >Again, the merits of the relative positions aside, I'm sure you can
> >appreciate the *potential* for abuse in that kind of process. At this point,
> >two and half years into the life of ICANN, if a clear policy has not already
> >been written somewhere (and I'm referring to more than a few references to
> >"authoritative roots" in ICANN's foundational documents), I'm not sure it
> >ought to be created now in the name of "existing policy." Consensus
> >policy-making is much harder work than that.
> >
> >I'll have more on the merits of the paper separately, but the process issues
> >here are of concern.
> >
> >      -- Bret
> >
> >
> >On 6/15/01 9:17 AM, "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> wrote:
> >
> >>  It seems, Milton, that academe has arrived at a new standard since I
> >>  left two years ago. Anyone who agrees with you is "honest" and anyone
> >>  who disagrees is not ;-). Well, well!
> >>
> >>  The basis for the statement that ICANN's policy is to support a
> >>  single authoritative root is extensively articulated in my document
> >>  and the references clearly cited. The White Paper, the Memorandum of
> >>  Understanding, and the Articles of Incorporation give clear
> >  > indication of ICANN's Policy. They are ICANN's charter documents. I
> >  > suggest you read them again. They are not very hard to understand and
> >  > their statements with regard to an authoritative single root and to
> >>  competing roots are quite clear. My statement on ICANN Policy is not
> >>  unilateral -- it is well-grounded in the community processes that led
> >>  to the White Paper and to the formation of ICANN.
> >>
> >>  You may disagree. That's fine. It would make for a dull ICANN if
> >>  everyone agreed on everything.
> >>
> >>  And I would encourage you to follow the appropriate processes if you
> >  > would like to see the current policy changed.
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: lynn@icann.org
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html