[council] Comments - MHSC Summary Opinion-/USG/DOC/NTIA/ICANN/DNSO/WG-Review
- To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>, "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>, "'Greg Burton'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'YJ Park (MINC)'" <email@example.com>, "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [council] Comments - MHSC Summary Opinion-/USG/DOC/NTIA/ICANN/DNSO/WG-Review
- From: Roeland Meyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:32:15 -0800
- Cc: "'vint cerf'" <vcerf@MCI.NET>, "'Amadeu@nominalia.com'" <Amadeu@nominalia.com>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>, "'Cohen'" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
As much as this has been dressed up, it
can all be boiled down to a simple goal. This WG is intended to come up with
answers that will fix the current fiasco that is the DNSO. The structure is
weak. The foundation's bad, the entire structure threatens to
collapse. I have witnessed one process hi-jacking after another. It has led
to a foundation built on quicksand. My analysis reveals that the DNSO has only
come to this juncture because everyone else has stopped playing with it. Two
years ago, I stated that this is one probable result of the process hi-jacking
and systematic disenfranchisement that created the DNSO. Such
disenfranchisement is at the core of the reasons that the DNSO has no
credibility. None with the ICANN BoD, the ccTLDs, or anywhere else.
Some consider it nothing more
than a political circus. A circus of no substance whatsoever. This is matched by
the fact that the DNSO has not emitted anything remotely resembling substantive
output, since its inception. Yet, we are asked, in five short weeks, during one
of the biggest holidays of the year, to come up with a remedy, a fix, a
curative, for the ailment of the DNSO. Moreover, we are asked to do this as a
result of a collaborrative effort.
Well, I can give you that curative
agent, but it is a result of MHSC involvement in these efforts since the Green
Paper. Although many have come out in support of these views, I do not pretend
to color this as any sort of consensus or collaborrative opinion. I can state
that this is the opinion of the Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc., for
which I, as both the Managing Director and the Chairman of the Board, am
authorized to speak. MHSC has participated in the Green Paper, White Paper, and
the IFWP. We have commented on both DraftPostel3 and 4. We were a participant on
the the drafting of the ORSC NewCo submission, in 1998, and the DNSO
organization proposal put before the ICANN BoD in Berlin, 1999. After the ORSC
dropped out of the process, MHSC continued its participation in DNSO/WG-B,
DNSO/WG-C, the DNSO/GA, and finally DNSO/WG-Review. Yes, MHSC was also one of
the protestors to the GIAC, in 1Q99, regarding the FAR violation of handing over
the IANA contracts, without proper bid procedure, to the ICANN (currently
pending). We have also been a long-term subscriber and contributor, to
NSI's DOMAIN-POLICY list.
For one thing, we can start
by re-enfranchising those that ICANN/DNSO dis-enfranchised in the first place.
Delete the primary tool for dis-enfranchisement ... the constituencies, and
re-integrate those blocks back into the DNSO/GA. It is clear that
we can neither agree on specific constituencies or that anyone has a clue on the
process needed to create a constituency. Simply creating them by executive fiat,
as the current constituencies are, is generally unacceptable and has not, in
fact, been accepted. This includes all the wrangeling over Independent Domain
Name Holders. There seems to be good agreement, in WG-Review, that the
constituency model is not working.
A better, more inclusive, approach to the constituency
model is to let the GA vote for ALL NC seats. No kowtowing to special
interests here (TM or otherwise). Let blocks of voters form PACs, but each
individual votes independently. For the DNSO, a voting member is one that has
color of title to, at least one, domain name. Additional domain names do not
garner any extra voting rights, however. Legally recognized corporate entities
can vote along with anyone else. But that is not enough. The DNSO must
actually spend the resources to develop a
scalable and secure voting/polling system, with full voter authentication.
Either start with Joop's system, or talk to Stef and Ed Gerck (I believe that
they are working on something).
Then you can, ever so
politely, invite the inclusive root server operators back into the fold, rather
than snubing them. Make this an inclusive club, in fact, rather than
fiction. Help, rather than hinder, the ORSC and its efforts to eliminate
TLD name space collisions. Empower them to do what the DNSO should have been
doing all along.
Move all these damned
mailing lists onto a news server and build a news server network, so that we can
all talk sensibly, with some organization. You've got a Solaris box running
DNSO.ORG, you have no excuse, INN is free-ware. These discussion
groups tend to get mighty confusing and unwieldy. It doesn't scale. NewsGroups
are a technology that are designed to deal with the volume of UseNet. No, we
don't have to put it on UseNet. In fact, my recommendation is that we don't do
that. ICANN/DNSO needs to form their own network for this. Feeds and servers can
be acquired, the DNSO simply has to "want" to do this. There are plenty of us
that can find the resources. It isn't as if we weren't
Finally, start running a
RootRegistry and build your own inclusive root-zone. Become the TLD names
clearing-house that many of us always wanted the DNSO to be.
I've included PDF files of
previous submissions, for reference and review. Both are on file and available,
in virtually any format you are likely to need, at http://www.dnso.net/library.htm. MHSC
owns and operates DNSO.NET.
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
+001 925 373 9781