[ga] GA proposition for the ICANN reform
IRT a joint GA/NC proposition to reform the ICANN, IMHO there is the wrong
way to do things: to start from a wrong design and to try to correct it.
And there is a correct way - with no warranty of success - which is to
understand what is the job, and what is necessary to perform it. And then
to propose a compact solution.
We have two main job evaluations.
1. one is by network oriented people who want to manage a network and
therefore want a strong center and a stable and secure control on the root
2. the second is by Internet oriented people who want to support the
internetwork and therefore want minimum of interferences with its natural
working in order to protect its stability and security
At this stage of the user station architecture inherited from the past
(mostly Windows/IE) it is true that both systems are worth to consider. So
a compromise is necessary.
However the necessary/observed evolution of the user station architecture
towards a standalone architecture is sure. You understand that when you
read Vint, IAB, IETF, etc. documents. You know that when you consider that
it was the architecture that prevailed (at monopolies/private nets of the
time) and made money when the public net services were established in
1978/1986. You see that when you consider the current "socialy correct".
We must therefore consider these two evaluations and make sure that nothing
will block the evolution from the first to the second, what is the current
problem. In plain words that the Root Server System may be under Pentagon
control for the US interests and under EEC supervision for the European
interests, etc... but that at the same time the obsolescence of the Root
may be smoothly carried.
Stability and security will obviously be reached in that area when no one
will have to rely on a synchronous third party process as any root server
Now, the economic impact must be accepted. Has the ICANN to consider it?
IMHO no, except in being totally remote and neutral. In plain words to
abandon the contract policy and go by standard accepted common rules qual
to all. However, the same as the WIPO has been associated to the resolution
of the naming problems (I do not judge the pertinence of the response), the
WTO could be associated to the naming commercial issues. In particular,
this would permit a correct addressing of the TLD squatting problem (by
NameSlinger as well as RealNames) and resolve the New.net non-issue.
On 21:49 12/03/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>On 2002-03-12 15:29:48 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>>Not that I disagree with your approach, and it's great to see a positive
>>reaction to pull everybdoy together, but is the purpose of the WG to
>>produce one definitive DNSO restructuring proposal on the basis of a
>>consensus of participants in the proposed WG? Or do you think a number of
>>mutually exclusive proposals may be put forward, each of which could go
>What will have to be done first is this:
>- understand what kinds of proposals are out there
>- understand what these proposals mean
>- document that understanding
>At least for the first steps, it's not really important whether we strive
>for the Great Unified Reform Plan (I don't believe we'll be the ones to
>find that one, but we may wish to keep the goal within sight), or whether
>we just try to end up with a set of distinct and well-understood
>proposals. In fact, the latter is a necessary step on the way to a GURP,
>and it's a step to which the GA can reasonably try to contribute by
>bundling public input into the DNSO's "GURP process". ;-)
>Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
>Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html