Re: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body
On 15:26 01/04/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>ll start by changing the subject heading to align with the thread, if I may.
I will revert the subject to something appropriate: as I never considered and
will never consider the iCANN as a governing body. My whole attitude is
based upon the fact that iCANN is not a governing bidy and those trying to
make it a governing body through (among others) :
- relations with USG and GAC
- TLD model
- UDRP standardization
- letter to givernements
- Plan B
- .org review
- .biz take away
are hurting deeply the Internet, the iCANN interests and the network stability.
>On Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:19 AM (AEST), Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)
>On 14:10 29/03/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
> > >as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a
> > >governing body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the
> > New.net is obviously a wrong example since they are not at root level. I am
> > surprised that the Chirman of the IEFT may use such a ploy to support his
> > point. Either your point is good and please use relevant example, or your
> > point is not and please do not try to confuse the issues.
>I think you are a little unfair to Harald here. New.Net is a perfectly valid
>example as it does use a root zone and has got 18 colliders. But even if it
>didn't, or was otherwise a poor example, Harald's substantive point
>must be addressed. I've tackled it one way already - this is a different
1. As you know New.net is not using a root. This is why it it is not a good
example. China could be one. Embarassing but good example.
2. If you read my response to Harald I further on say that his point is
(if the example is not) and I addressed it.
Now you take other Harlad's points from another threat. These points were well
taken and relevant. They just forgot the "date rule". The whole inclusive
relies on the date of first use in the network. If someone breaks the rule he
is commonly considered as the bad guy. BTW that rule is universal and is
the basis for IP. As long as we are among civilized people, this rule is
There may be conflicts but people may solve them based upon that rule.
Now when that rule is denied by a leading participant like iCANN in the
".biz" take away case we have a true problem.
But the problem is not with the people Harald is questionning. The problem
is with the pople Harald is supporting. So I suppose Harald may help with
a response (I do not pull his leg here: there are some existing solutions
within the iCANN in case of iCANN unfair behaviour. These solutions have
published rules which may be used in courts. Today that kind of action
by iCANN lead to inquiries by the Senate and Congress and - to some
extents - to comments by several GAC Members and EU).
>Harald's point is: When there are no enforceable rules (such as you might
>in a tightly controlled centraised system) how can you stop people setting
>new root zone which collides with all the others. Money talks, bulldust
>Unless and until the alternate root people, or their supporters, can develop a
>workable and effective solution to that problem then it will continue to be
>raised. And that's fair. In fact it is the core question to be addressed.
>Off the top of my head I can see several possible real-world approaches which,
>alone or in combination, could provide a result (if not a solution):
>(1) Technical. If you look at Alternic's TLD finder (say for ".com" or
>".web") who you will see that it queries multiple roots:
>This shows that it would be possible to write a browser which will produce a
>list of all domain names held by conflicting TLDs in whatever root they
>If I had some VC that's exactly what I would do.
I am afraid not. Such a system is based upon a list of RSCs. If the one
offering the system does not list all the different roots (would iCANN list
all the roots alternic is ???) results are differents.
>There are no doubt other technical solutions including overlaying a directory
>over the DNS as is done by Realnames. I'm sure that will end up being the
>solution for multilingual domains. And I would not discount your comments
>(which I haven't studied) on BIND software solutions.
I am sorry you did not. I am not commenting a technical solution.
I just state and remind everyine that if we add (as Jeff Williams says) 36
of code into the named program code the whole philosophy of the Internet is
changed, the USG claims are irrelevant, the iCANN is deeply to be reviewed,
Plan B must be deeply modified and the Protocol is actually meaningless on
a few key elements.
A few other lines added elesewhere would the same way kill the IP
strategy and UDRPs.
Again, the constitution of the Internet is writen in the source code.
And bytes are carried by machines and lines not by laws and contracts.
Forgeting that is the real problem of the Staff.
Any paperwork you do to curb technical innovations will never stand,
all themore if that innovation provides some good financial returns.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html