Subject: What institutional form is needed instead of ICANN?

From: Ronda Hauben <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:17:06 -0400 (EDT)

Toward opening up a real discussion over what to do about ICANN 
and recognizing that this is *not* confined to a contest between
NSI and ICANN as it is being portrayed in the U.S. media, 

See in Telepolis:

        What Institutional Form is Needed to Replace ICANN?

        URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5183/1.html

        See also proposal originally submitted to the NTIA to
         create a solution to the problem rather than ICANN
         http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt

Ronda

---

From: Ronda Hauben <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:50:23 -0400 (EDT)

Brian

>Please don't waste our time with this. The argument about the
>creation of ICANN is long over and done with. Can we please
>stick to IETF business on this list?

But isn't who controls the IETF part of the IETF business?

Can you say why there has been so little public discussion
of this important issue?

Without a variety of viewpoints and the discussion over such
a significant change in the nature of the IETF isn't there
a serious danger to the IETF and the Internet?

Is there some reason that those in the IETF who are making 
the decision for the IETF's to support ICANN and be part of 
it haven't encouraged more open discussion in the IETF and 
on the mailing list?

If ICANN can't stand public scrutiny, how can the IETF 
be part of it?

Thanks for any insight you can shed on what is happening
with this all.

Ronda

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:26:42 -0400

>Enough about icann, it is not ietf business. Several good people who have
>helped in many matters have left the list due to thes 30-40 messages a day
>about irrelevant business.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
>To: IETF <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 5:40 PM
>Subject: Re: What institutional form is needed instead of ICANN?
>

Does Vint Cerf have nothing to do with the IETF?

see http://www.msnbc.com/news/302207.asp#BODY

where inter alia you will read:

  MCI Vice President Vint Cerf wrote in one e-mail to ICANN board
   members that he had contacted officials at his own company and those of
  IBM looking to come up with $1 million in "bridge" funding, which
   ICANN could pay back "at a later time under reasonable terms."
   Cerf suggested keeping the funding quiet while a new ICANN fund
   raising campaign was kicked off "knowing that we have the ability to back
  up the campaign with a rescue effort in the short term."
  Cerf also suggests that the campaign be based on the notion that
   "ICANN must succeed or Internet will be in jeopardy. This ought to play
  well with any company whose stock price is dependent on a
   well-functioning Internet."

Cook:
dump on me if you wish.  But why are you dumping on karl auerbach who 
certainly has solid 100% IETF credentials?  And why is VINT so 
desparately spreading FUD about ICANNs supposed essentially role in 
ensuring stable internet operation?

There are plenty of people on this list who have to understand that 
ICANN has precious little to do with a well functioning Internet.

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:26:42 -0400

Cook: