Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Leah,
dont worry, this is just Dave's delaying tactic. Nothing more than the
famous Vint's response: "not my cup of tea". I think that on the Hill
they start being quite frustrated as several other Govs and EU...
with this kind of attitude.

May be will we hear them screaming when a conflicting ".com" is
started.  Did he not hear about 'porn.com' project??? I would be
delighted seeing Dave in string when I call http://icann.org :-) !!!
BTW did you get some more infos in the news about it?
Jefsey




On 23:47 13/04/01, JandL said:
>the debate in the past has been among a small group of people, did
>not take into consideration aspects beyond the WWW and did not
>inlcude the public.  It did not go anywhere because it was almost
>totally political and not technical.  Discussions rarely took into
>account the entire Internet.  The public was not informed because
>it meant little to the average user due to ignorance of the subject
>matter.
>
>Well, people are more savvy and the issue is about to impact
>millions of people instantly.  It is important for the GA to consider it,
>since ICANN is at the heart of the problem by advocating an ostrich-
>like and isolationist stance wrt to existing TLDs.
>
>Ignoring the issues beyond simple registrations of domain names is
>absolutely outrageous.  It may not have been seen as a major issue
>prior to this because the majority of the public has no idea what is
>about to happen.
>
>To continue to insist that a situation does not exist just because
>you don't want it to exist is foolhardy.  The issue is duplication in
>the DNS.  It is serious and more so now that ICANN has determined
>that it doesn't matter; that it has a separate name space and that
>duplication is just fine and dandy as long as it is not in "their root."
>
>This is so wrong.  You just go ahead and and foster the notion that
>nothing will be amiss when email goes haywire, nameservers are a
>mess and the internet stabiltiy is affected.
>
>And let's not forget that it is not the "alternate roots" who are
>advocating this duplication.  It is ICANN.  I don't know of even one
>root manager who would favor deliberate duplication (except ICANN
>and new.net).  They all know the consequences of doing so and are
>working to eliminate them.  They all also know that there can be
>only one registry for a TLD to avoid duplicates.
>
>Delaying tactic?  We've been screaming about duplication since
>ICANN began discussing the possibility of accepting applications for
>duplicates.  The GA may not have picked up the discussion, but it
>has been there.  ICANN has simply stubbornly ignored it.  Not one
>word was mentioned at the Melbourne meetings.  It was a non issue
>to the BoD.  In MDR, Mr. Kraaijenbrink was insistent that it didn't
>matter and that it should be ignored.
>
>You insist that working outside the ICANN framework means just
>that and that ICANN should ignore "independents."  Fine.  Let's see
>the result.  Let DoC enter a duplicate TLD.  But let's hold them
>responsible for the results of doing so, okay?  And let's hold ICANN
>responsible for facilitating and suggesting it and not doing anything
>to cooperate in the effort to prevent it.
>
>Do I sound frustrated?  Well I am.  It amazes me that this political
>hot potato is more important to some than the real issues.
>
>Leah
>
>
> > At 01:08 PM 4/13/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> > >At 11:15 PM 4/12/2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > >>However, there is some possibility that, given enough time and some
> > >>clear guidance, such a group might achieve some consensus points
> > >>that could bring about a temporary ceasefire...
> > >
> > >I agree with Milton on this. The NC should create a Working Group to
> > >explore this. Introduction of new colliding TLDs (especially .BIZ)
> > >should be put on hold until this WG has a chance to explore the
> > >ramifications of alternate or competing roots.
> >
> >
> > 1.  This is not a new topic.  It has been around for years.  Why is it
> > only being pursued this late, with new ICANN registries about to be
> > turned on?
> >
> > 2.  The debate on this topic, over a period of years, has not produced
> > an discernible, neither practical nor theoretical.  What is the basis
> > for believing that anything other than further delay will be the
> > result of this effort, now?
> >
> > 3.  Why should the independent actions of registration activities of
> > independent namespaces be of any concern to us?
> >
> > This is exactly the sort of activity that suggests an interest in
> > endless debate than in providing users with new TLDs...
> >
> > d/
> >
> > ----------
> > Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> > tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html