Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

At 09:57 AM 8/22/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>At 01:29 AM 8/22/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >focusing on various, vague, general fears, rather than on specific
> >constructive goals or even constructive approaches to making
> >improvements.  There also seems to be an unfortunate lack of understanding
> >of DNS technical details or even of ICANN's limited scope.
>
>         I was intrigued by Dave's comment, so I took a look at the 
> acceptance statements of the various

Jonathan, an interesting exercise.  Thanks for pursuing it.

While what follows might seem critical, it is intended to suggest the 
difficulty of evaluating candidates.  The question is how to tell who is 
really qualified, and THAT begins with trying to understand requirements of 
the job.

(I should dissemble a bit further.  None of what follows is critical of the 
people being discussed.  Rather, I'm trying to focus on the criteria.)


>Peter de Blanc (de Blanc established a ccTLD registry, and so presumably 
>is familiar with DNS technical details)

The ICANN Board is responsible for global policy of DNS (and IP) 
administration.  Having experience with a particular registry is, of 
course, helpful.  However it tells us nothing about the person's 
understanding of large-scale operations, design or policy issues. They 
might have great insight or they might not.  We can't tell.

An auto mechanic might be quite good at auto repair, but would you 
automatically assume that they are good at designing a new automobile, or 
even able to suggest engineering changes to existing cars?  And just so 
there is no confusion:  the answer to both parts is no.)


> >I feel that is our responsibility, as Internet professionals, to 
> champion the cause of outreach to under serviced populations. . . .

All of this text that you quoted is really general platitudes.  Not 
negative, and that's nice, but it tells us nothing about what the person 
knows or how they might decide particular issues.  (To be fair, of course, 
the application form did not solicit such detail.  For those voting, 
however, it would be helpful to get it.)


>James P. Love

Given that James and I have had strong exchanges and seem to hold strongly 
different views, it's worth noting that most if the text you quoted from 
him is far more concrete than the usual platitudes provided in such forms.


>>e.   ICANN should not require new TLD registries to sign contractual 
>>provisions or make other assurances that they will not participate in 
>>alternative root systems.  I am not aware of any evidence that such 
>>alternatives present problems for the Internet, and ICANN should avoid 
>>practices that will be seen as monopolistic or anticompetitive.

Most of the statements pertain to fuzzier aspects of legitimate social (and 
legal) policy and, therefore, can reasonably be debated.  This one, 
however, falls victim to the efforts at trying to move technical realities 
and constraints into that fuzzier area.  That is, it tries to pretend that 
technical issues are not technical issues.  We had all better be very 
careful that ICANN does not start trying to make rules that violate 
technical realities, such as the nature of the DNS root.

d/

--
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