Last Call for Vint Cerf Questions
Date: Tuesday March 13 2001, @12:27PM
Topic: Board of Directors

Vint Cerf has kindly agreed to answer written questions from ICANNWatch readers and editors. We had a first round of suggested questions last week, but we held off sending them until after Melbourne. We'll be sending him our list some time early Thursday morning so if you have any new questions you'd like to ask Vint Cerf, better suggest them soon. All you have to do is add a comment to this item, containing the text of your suggested question.

An explanation of how these interviews work, and also the questions collected in our first round, can be found by clicking here.

[To suggest a new question for Vint Cerf, or start a new comment thread, click the "Send Your Comment" button in the yellow box to the right.]

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Last Call for Vint Cerf Questions | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 8 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re: Last Call for Vint Cerf Questions
by Jon_Weinberg on Wednesday March 14 2001, @09:27AM (#415)
User #16 Info |
ICANN staff have repeatedly indicated that no amendments to the proposed Verisign contracts are possible. In fact, though, when the last set of contracts between ICANN and NSI were adopted, in November 1999, they were changed in response to public comment. Why are the new contracts inviolate?

Along the same lines, you have stated that it would be impossible to negotiate an extension to the current May 2001 divestiture deadline to allow the Internet community to comment on these contracts on a reasonable timeframe. Is that because Verisign would not agree to such an extension? Verisign states (in Stratton Sclavos's 2/28/01 letter) that you have committed, if the Board does not accept the proposed contracts, to "seek formal Board approval for an appropriate extension of the [divestiture deadline] under the existing agreement." If Verisign will be seeking an extension of the deadline if the proposal is rejected, why should ICANN not seek an extension of the deadline so as to decide?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Last Call for Vint Cerf Questions
by alexander on Wednesday March 14 2001, @03:37AM (#413)
User #22 Info |
Dear Vint Cerf,

before the At Large elections, (not only) the Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) has been working on recommendations to the Board about the concept of At Large membership. E.g. in the MAC Singapore Report it stated MAC consensus on the purpose of the at-large membership: "To ensure representation on the ICANN board of directors of those individual and organizational users that are not already represented by the Supporting Organizations."

Now, there is a post-election study questioning the whole At Large structure. (By the way, the anonymized election data has not yet been released by ICANN. There are obviously ways of anonymizing the election data without restricting it to simple aggregates or pre-election data.)

Why do you (or do you at all) see the need to study this part of the ICANN structure -- and not others? E.g. the DNSO review is taking place because there is a widespread perception, even within the DNSO, that the structure is not working too well. What do you think is wrong or broken when it comes to Internet user participation on the ICANN Board?

Best regards,
- Alexander
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: