[ncdnhc-discuss] transfers tk

[todd glassey]

The problem with replacing ICANN is that no one in their right mind is going
to allow anyone to flush the existing ICANN without a plan. And its public
buyin to that plan that will win this battle, and not anything else really.
So until such time that this WG or others can come up with "the plan" this
talk is mostly just rhetoric. My feeling is that this is not a flash-dance,
a game, or other charade,  its the reality of the situation.

And be sure of one thing, that "the plan" is going to have to have a lot
more detail an contingency mapped out than the original ICANN ones did,
because now we know what doesn't work from the first pass at ICANN's
architecture and responsibilities,  and we also see how political the
business of registering and serving names on the Global Net is.

just my two cents...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: "t byfield" <tbyfield at panix.com>
To: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>
Cc: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] transfers tk


> james.love at cptech.org (Mon 09/23/02 at 05:11 PM -0400):
>
> > I would like to  resign from the transfers tk.   What ICANN time I have
is
> > most spent trying to keep up with icannatlarge.com, and working on a
> > replace ICANN scenarios.
>
> that's a shame, because i'm sure your contributions to the TTF would
> be sensible and practical, jamie. but ultimately i'd rather see a vi-
> able alternative to ICANN than further elaboration of the increasing-
> ly scholastic debates within ICANN, so if it's a zero-sum choice (as
> it seems to be), then there you go.
>
> thanks, as always, for your efforts.
>
> cheers,
> t
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss