[ga] AMERICANN

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Eric and others,
you ask me my long term concept since no one supposes I am "anti-" something.
The concept is simple: let no impeach anyone to better serve us. AMERICANN 
blocks innovation already for 2 years.


Let get real. The world is not perfect, and we have to live with it. The 
ICANN concept is IMHO not only good but necessary. However its AMERICANN 
translation by Joe Sims & Staff is less and less acceptable as time flows 
because of three conflicts.

1) there is a basic misunderstanding between the infrastructure needs it is 
supposed to address and the structure governance level where Joe Sims and 
als. have set it up.

2) it has a conflicting mission: to be International and to be US 
supportive. This was acceptable due to the US tradition of generosity for a 
bootstrap period. This is not anymore, in the best interest of the USA and 
of the other communities.

3) it has fostered three visions of the Internet: the e-legal model by 
Louis Touton (the TLD/ccTLD contracts), the commercial model by VeriSign, 
NeuLevel etc... and the real Internet model written into the source code 
that the users will eventually utilize...

IMHO the solution lies into simple corrections of these drifts.

1) to identify current Staff as the AMERICANN. And ccTLDs to eventually 
understand that they will not survive long in a One Million TLDs universe; 
they have quick to move into a National Internet Center equivalent 
infrastructure for sevice management, to the benefit of their national 
Internet community and of their local TLD and root industry.

2) to re-create the ICANN as an AMERICANN/NICs non-profit association with 
a charter of common technical secretariat. Established in Brussels, Tokyo 
or Tonga Island: in any place where you do not think in term of money 
sponsoring but in term of rendered services. With Internet User and 
Internet Provider stable intenational representations, a $ 250.000 a year 
budget and some imagination. Lean to be efficient.

(Money may flow from foundations, but not in that ICANN buget).

3) to quickly set-up two working conferences: one with inclusive roots to 
agree on Root and TLD Best Practices to stabilize and protect the Name 
Space against TLD squatting; one with every possible stakeholder, from 
industries to governments, from arts to churches, from software developers 
to boy-scouts to define an IPv6 "requirement form". So we may study a 
sensible IP addressing scheme which will not turn into a nightmare some 
years from now.

What are the oppositions to that?

- confusion of some between network stability and TM protection. These 
people do not see the harm they do to TM owners like me in building 
structural protections which are going to collapse and in not preparing any 
infrastructural long term protection.

- financial interests: .info has strictly no use: the proof of concept is 
to show AMERICANN may turn nothing into hundreds of millions of dollars. I 
am afraid they will turn into nothing again soon.

- personal pride: I reread the "Stuart Lynn" bylaw violation: there is 
nothing there which really stands. A part from being an offence to many 
national privacy laws and a disloyal commercial practice about .biz and 
.web, this is pure incantation "X said so, he cannot wrong, he is right, 
amen. Y said so, he cannot be wrong, he is right, amen. Z said so, he 
cannot be wrong, he is right, amen."

This makes it the most difficult barricade to overcome. It is like having 
this list agreeing on something. This will slow down the process since the 
only way around will be the market/users/you and me to win. Stuart knows 
it: he talks about future agreements on other topics (how could we agree on 
details if we disagre on principles, unless their "principles" are just 
smoke screen).

Jefsey


--
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