Re: [ga] Question No. 1
Roeland and all remaining assembly members,
Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > From: Kent Crispin [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:19 PM
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:00:26PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > The practical application is that;
> > >
> > > ICANN cannot ignore the contextual referents of the other root-zone
> > > publishers.
> > On the contrary, ICANN really has no choice but to ignore the entities
> > you call "root-zone publishers".
> The contextual referent is not the entity. How do you disagree? Are you
> saying that context is irrelevent? That's how we got here in the first
How true. Yet there are some that would strenuously disagree with
you on this. But of course that is to be expected, isn't it?
> > It is in contractual relationships
> > with numerous entities for whom the assumption of a single
> > authoritative root zone under ICANN custody is fundamental. The
> > largest of these contracting entities is the USG, but every single
> > other entity involved also has a justified expectation that
> > ICANN will
> > carry out the mandate of preserving the authority of that single root
> > zone.
> Ignoring your "argument from authority" for the moment, the other root-zone
> publishers have been taking great pains to avoid collisions with each other
> and the ICANN root zone. All of these are entities acting within their own
> context but, trying to allow for the existance of meta-contextual relations.
> This is actually a sign of good faith, IMHO. There are only two, maybe
> three, entities that are not showing such good faith. One of them is ICANN,
> by your argument. NameSpace is another. The third entity, whom has not shown
> their flag clearly yet, may be New.NET.
Indeed at least ICANN has shown it's flag and did so in MDR, and yet
again with the Versign "New Deal" contract BoD Vote/Decision....
> The salient point here is that none of them can suppress the other's
> existance, activity, or actions. This is an important point. Like it as not,
> the others exist in a contingent universe. They WILL impact each other. The
> goal is to minimize the impacts and resultant damage. The new player on the
> scene (NEW.NET) has sufficient resources, maybe more resources than the
> ICANN, unlike the ORSC and other players. The impact of this new player,
> with the ICANN, is strictly up to the ICANN.
Well the impact is in part up to ICANN. New.net has something to say
about that impact as well whether or not ICANN deals with New.Net,
and/or how they do....
> I see NEW.NET as being
> passive-aggresive. If they perceive ICANN as being predatory, or
> unconscionably obtuse, they may take another course than amiable
> negotiation. War is bad for business, but if survival is an issue then war
> will occur. I'd rather not see a full-fledged market war in the name space,
> thank you.
There has been a war going on for some time now. The difference now
as in the not too distant past is that there is a new player on the battlefield.
There will be more.
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
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