DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] No Funds for Proper Analysis

Dear Derek,
this post is interesting. Please do not be hurt as it is not intended
and this is basis for further analysis, but this exactly the powerfull
rolling process to construct uncessary institutions.

What is the Internet? A consensus. Billion of people agreeing the
same thing: to use TCP/IP protocols to dialog together. This is
nothing more. Question: is Internet necessary to TCP/IP? No.
Is TCP/IP necessary to the Internet? Yes. From this one can say
that the Internet is part of the TCP/IP usage. Would you make the
Internet boring, TCP/IP users would move out of the Internet. This
is whet one start hearing around: OpenNet a successor to the

I agree with you the DNSO is a mess and the iCANN is of no other
use than allowing the USG to delegates something they do not
know what to do with, and they do not even own as it does not exist.

So why do you care about groupies - they are fun. I love calling
Kent or Dave or Harald or Robert or Joop or Patrick or Danny or
me a groupy. They enjoy time that way, disputing absurd issues
about a group of 30 people. (BoD + Staff).  Looks like a Parent
Association of 8 years old class.

iCANN is of no use:
- if they had some use in root management they would hire a
   Technical manager
- TLD management? .. they even mess the few the create in
   entering collider.  Two TLD  a year: creating one to 1000
   TLDs takes me 10  minutes (I automated the process :-) ).
- they are of no use in creatig IP addresses. Too complex, too
   politictal for them. Will be taken over..
- they have some use in alocating Proteocl numbers: you need
   to have someone rememberng were the book is.

Oh, no I am wrong. They have a use: to have peole sqwaking
about them. Look at the number of sites, documents, etc...
iCANN has nothing to do with the net, it is pure show.biz

Frankly. Why do you want me to put a penny in funding the
iCANN? Please give me a good reason to help such a
charity (?), research (?), educational (?) corporation.... I am
99% concerned in the iCANN for one single reason: to lower
the harm it can cause to me.

Now, would the iCANN stick to its bylaws and accept TLDs
as unlimited Members it could provide some good internationad
consensus secretariat. It could be of some good use. But
the $ 50.000 application fee into the "international TLD
business" killed that..... and I am afraid your propositions
are not correcting it. Or am I wrong?


On 17:13 09/06/01, Derek Conant said:
>Who knows what they are talking about here?  There needs to be a process
>here that funds the development and advancement of the constructive
>questions and comments being submitted by participants.
>What we have here is a failure to obtain the funding necessary to
>present any meaningful comprehensive analysis, compiled by experts
>presenting statistical data and information concerning the subject
>matter being addressed by the DNSO.
>This is primarily why I expressed the necessity of ICANN Approved
>Proposal Organizations (APOs) at:
>APOs can be profit and non-profit organizations that qualify to
>represent their studies, constituencies and/or members.   ICANN will
>need to evolve toward a structural model and system that gives
>organizations the incentive to fund comprehensive analysis, compiled by
>experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
>subject matter being addressed by ICANN Supporting Organizations.
>The APO competition component is clearly apparent in the DNSO process
>and forums.  This is clearly evident by the existence of established
>groupies in the DNSO process and forums and their refusal to acknowledge
>and investigate constructive comments and positions from one not in
>their group.  It is also apparent that said groupies feel threatened
>when constructive comments and positions are presented.  Groupies exist
>in the DNSO process and forums and they appear to be preventing the
>development and advancement of constructive dialog if the comment and
>position contribution does not agree with, or does not come from one in
>the established group.
>If ICANN is going to allow the formation of groupies in its processes,
>then these groupies that believe that they know what they are talking
>about should step up to the plate with money to fund comprehensive
>analysis, compiled by experts presenting statistical data and
>information concerning the subject matter being addressed, that proves
>the groupies position.
>The ICANN Supporting Organizations and ICANN Board should be relying on
>experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
>subject matter being addressed.  ICANN should not be developing its
>policy and standards upon a process that is not funded and relies on
>ICANN and the Internet is mature enough now to begin the process of
>restructuring its Supporting Organizations and to engage the APO
>concept.  The APO concept would invite organizations from around the
>world to fund ICANN internationalization and the development and
>advancement of international policy and standards.  The Governments of
>the world would also have incentive to fund ICANN internationalization
>through APO processes.
>I am submitting this for constructive criticism.
>Derek Conant
>DNSGA President and Chairman
>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

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 >>>