[ga] starving the DNSO (or the iCANN?) to death - why?
are we not mad?
How can reasonable people conceive that a department of a corporation with
a reasonable income should live from charities and donations to be
independent from its own organization and deliver it a better service? and
that to improve its professional capacity such a department should reduce
its work force when it does not contribute enough - out of its own pocket -
to its production cost.
Apart from Songbird Inc., please show me a single business consulting firm
in the world advising his clients along such lines.
Chuck, I don't see the Interest of your position for VeriSign. Should it be
picked by the press, you would be negatively be labeled as the ugly
capitalist draining profits from starving children, or the big bad company
buying votes at your partners management?
I certainly appreciate you gallantly defend your position. But let me ask a
- why are you the only one? Why are ccTLDs, TL, BC not defending their votes?
- how can you pretend that if the DNSO gets external funding you will not
take that as a reason to pretend it biased?
- don't you find disturbing that you proposed occasionally monies to the
DNSO during an important negotiation where you wanted its silence and now
you withhold that money after the NC negative vote?
- how can you pretend the iCANN is democratic an fair now it is plain that
BoD seats are money dependent. YJ Park will never make it to the Board now.
If the DoC approve Plan B, it will mean they enter into an indirect sales
of influences business. I am not sure hey like it.
Let be realist and tell the truth. The iCANN is delegated USG
responsibilities in the areas of consensus. Your interests - as TMs and
some parts of BC and may be - we discover it through the vote - ccTLDs are
in competition with consensus. (If you disagree here there is an easy way
to turn me wrong: tell us what you, main BCs and TMs bring to the Internet
Community they could not have for less?)
Your strategy is pretty plain. "You" said the consensus areas are defined
by 2/3 votes of 19 people elected/self appointed by "your" interests. So
when there is obviously not a consensus (when we the people oppose your
interests) 13 people decides we are not representative, we are dreamers, we
are activists, we are biased, ... but actually there is a consensus. So
this is your territory.
Let be clear: Plan B story shown the world that there is no consensus about
VeriSign. ".biz" shows the world there is no consensus about TLDs. New.net
and MultiBind show the world there is no consensus about DNS. Should people
not be diverted from IPv6 by the DNSO stories, disputes would show there is
no consensus about ASO issues... This means that the iCANN would only be
left with ASO to manage.
Your response is simple: you over complexify the issues so USG is afraid of
retaking over: - Plan B, gTLD model huge amount of text exchanges &
contracts over 100 characters to enter in an ASCII file, WIPO long
documents and process, UDREP complexity, etc.. This is always the same
response. But the market response is also always the same: when a way
becomes too complex, it chooses another way. The whole Telecom world was
busy for years with Teletex, then with ISO Model, then with X.400/X500, now
with iCANN, next with iCANN/VeriSign divestiture....
Either the DoC puts an end to this. Or the world community starts an anti
trust action against you next year, or MS or a cute guy modifies the Window
Socket allowing alternative choices for DNS information access, or
viruscoms put an end to the .com image, or you become more aware of your
long term interests and you make a smart turn, or anything else happens,
but the world Internet community will not accept that situation for a long,
killing the consensus. As Chinese already did...
So let me know where is the interest of your position for your company?
Your business plan would look far better - and you quite told it - in
forgetting the "American Joke", fostering some competition yourself -
hosting independent TLDs as you host the RIPE - proposing all the legacy
TLDs to allocate 3c per DNs to the DNSO and to the ASO (or do you want the
Inclusive TLDs to take the lead ;-) ?) so they grow a more user oriented
iCANN, helping develop the DNSSEC under GNU licence, starting new DNS
... BTW there is one reason why I would accept your position. It would be
if you do not believe/want the iCANN to survive and you don't want to help
it stay any longer in subsidizing its components. Or you want a collapse
for a rebuild?
You see that the 13 people threshold is endangered by the @large and by
some DNSO reps. So the burying @large study and the DNSO financial strangling.
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