Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Kristy McKee wrote:

> I think at this point everyone understands the USG's Representatives (the
> ICANN and the DNSO)

They are not USG representatives. The whole point of ICANN is to construct an
international organisation that the USG can hand management off to.

You can claim they've done a lousy job of it. I would, though I'd have to
admit the issues are complex and the interest groups fierce so it isn't
entirely clear that they had a lot of choice about some of it.

The transfer isn't complete yet. You can claim that the USG still has far
too much influence here or that ICANN appears nowhere near ready to actually
do its job right. I'd be inclined to agree on both counts.

But calling ICANN and DNSO "the USG's Representatives" is at best disinginuous.

> support the rights of Major Corporations over those of any other entity.

Yes, they have both given the "intellecutual property" lobby far too much
and failed to manage the contractors at NSI/Verisign well.

> We can move past this.  It's important to note that not
> everyone feels so comfortable with the USG controlling all TLDs.

The USG does not control all TLDs. Even if we accept your flawed claim that
the USG controls ICANN, controlling the root and therefore the /allocation/
of TLDs is a far different thing from "controlling all TLDs".

> China, among others has no interest in using the legacy root services.

Have you any evidence for this? It seems to me .cn is in the root zone, and
I fairly often see Chinese sending to various mailing lists I'm on. All of
them are (surprise!) hosted on real domains whose TLDs are in the ICANN root.
The Chinese I see there seem to have no problem finding those domains.

> We haven't been all that successful in the IETF in working with the brighter
> individuals

Or this?

> and as a result IPv8, and many other advanced technologies are
> being used in development spaces and Internet Root systems that are not run
> by the USG.

Or this?

When I go look at www.6bone.net for a test framework for ipv6 (not 8, I think
you had a typo there), I notice:

	it's a .net address. Guess what root it's in?
	some of the RFC authors are USG employees:
	   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2471.txt
	the mailing lisi is hosted at isi.edu, where IANA was
	   http://www.6bone.net/6bone_email.html

So I suspect your paragraph above is utter nonsense. Yes, there are experimental
IPv6 networks, and other experimental setups in areas such as wireless and
mobile IP. They have nothing to do with the bogus root systems you promote.

> This a real problem.  We should work towards it's resolution or just leave
> the DNSO to Crispin, Crocker, and their fans.
> 
> If we're not willing to create a solution that empowers the public instead
> of a few groups (of which many of us are not permitted to belong);

Not permitted? How? You're here. You could have voted in various elections.
You can speak. should you say something sensible, people will likely listen.

> then
> we're not worthy of existence.  We need to work towards working with China
> and other folks who may not agree with all of us on anything, not work
> toward the exclusion of China and nearly every netizen and Internet
> participant.

Exclusion? How? 

>  But we have a LONG WAY TO GO, especially considering our
> inability to publicly broadcast meetings using free software and a little
> bandwidth from our ISP constituency.  It's embarrassing to participate in a
> group who apparently has less access to technology than me and my little,
> itty bitty company.
> 
> ~k
>
--
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