DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response toresponse)

  • To: General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@dnso.org>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response toresponse)
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
  • Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:40:27 -0700
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <sb13aa00.022@gwia201.syr.edu>
  • Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org

Milton and all,

  Excellent post here Milton!  >;)  I have a few comments and
in response and in agreement with yours below...

Milton Mueller wrote:

> No, we don't quite have a point of agreement yet. It seems that IAB still
> doesn't seem to grasp the fact that it is dealing with a standards
> competition phenomenon, and that ICANN management is hysterical.

  I agree that the IAB seems to be living in their own little world that
is not quite up to the pace of changing technology.  I can't say that
ICANN Management is hysterical, but it is obvious that it is out of
in a number of areas, and seemingly not willing to get in touch lately
on a number of fronts.  This is troubling, to be sure...

> Tell me: do you think the integration of wireless communication into a
> single global standard will occur if the GSM proponents insist that
> THEY are the "authoritative" standard and all other technologies
> are "harmful" and will cause incompatibility (with them)?
> They would be correct, of course, that the existence of alternate
> technologies will create interoperability problems. But no one is in a
> position to eliminate competing technologies nor should they be.
> How productive would it be to insist that no issues of policy or coordination
> need to be considered?

  All good questions and they have been ask in several ways many times
before to the ICANN BoD.  Most of these questions have either been
ignored, however ask, of ridiculed for even asking them.

> On the Names Council, Peter de Blanc and I have tried to initiate a
> calm, deliberate, rational exploration of the problem of multiple roots.
> We simply wanted to start by recognising facts: New.net exists,
> there was a conflcit over .biz, there are problems with the
> implementation of internationalized domain names that is leading
> to separate roots.

  There  is also conflict over .INFO as well...  China amongst a
growing number of Asian nations are moving independently with
internationalized domain names as well as Competitive and inclusive
root and registry structures.  This too is a FACT that the IAB and
the ICANN BoD seem to be having trouble excepting or even
acknowledging...  Again a very troubling area of concern...

> Our initial phase was consciously constructed to avoid
> statements of hard policy positions and to encourage education and
> understanding of the ramifications of the issue.
> The reaction we have got? ICANN and IAB jumping up and down and screaming "I am the authoritative standard by DEFINITION!" "The policy
> is already set! There is nothing to discuss!" "Whoever raises this issue is
> hostile to the stability of the Internet!" Stuart Lynn, who doesn't seem
> to have understood a thing I've written, has publicly written that I am "an
> enthusiastic proponent of abandoning a single root."

  Well it is clear that a single root structure or Competitive and/or
Inclusive Root structures are here to stay along with like Registries.
The ICANN BoD's lack of acceptance and therefore willingness to
cooperate with these other entities has fragmented the DNS and
will also likely threaten to fragment the IP registry structure as well
very soon.  As such it is obvious that the ICANN BoD is entrenched
in it's position(s) in these and other areas, to the extent that it
threatens the very stability of the Internet as a whole.  I believe
therefore, as do our members and a now rapidly growing number
of stakeholders (New.Net Registrants for example), that the ICANN
BoD is in abeyance with their contract with DOC/NTIA as a result.

> Clearly, the DNSO cannot take the first tiny steps toward policy
> discussion without ICANN management deciding that it already
> knows that the right policy is and ramming it down everyone's throats,
> and it seems to have the active support of the IAB in this. If you
> want points of agreement, work with your IAB colleagues to fix this.
> >>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> 05/29/01 02:55AM >>>
> Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will eventually occur.
> It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do not want to
> admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point where one name
> has only one resolution in any DNS service.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>