Re: [ga] reform proposal

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristy McKee" <k@widgital.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: [ga] reform proposal


>
> Folks, if we are really considering this proposal, why don't we start by
> listing all the processes we want to change or list what we want?  How
will
> the decision makers know who to choose if we don't communicate what we
want?
>
> For example, if you want Ben and Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice
> cream, don't tell me you are tired of chocolate yogurt and want me to get
> you something else in the genre of ice cream.  Tell me you want Ben and
> Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice cream.  In reference to ICANN,
let's
> be specific about what we WANT, in addition to letting them know why we
> don't want ICANN.

ICANN is an NPO is California and is a government supported monopoly and it
is inapprorpriate that ICANN was even setup in this form as the entity that
manages the global Internet.

TSG> YOU MEAN THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR A GLOBAL ORG LIKE ICANN TO BE A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION? THIS IS TRUE AT THE VERY LEAST.

TSG> MY FEELING IS THAT ICANN'S CORPORATE STATUS AS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
SHOULD BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE CORPORATIONS BOARD FOR IF
NO OTHER REASONS, THE AUERBACH SUIT AGAINST THE BOARD FOR REFUSING TO
DISCLOSE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THE CORPORATE STATE TO HIM AS A DIRECTOR.

    1)    ICANN needs to be split up.

TSG> YES YES YES!

> The coalescing the protocol standards
development, the protocol standards implementation approval body, and the
name services infrastructure (Both the registrars and ASO's) is more than
loading all the eggs into one basket, it effectively eliminates open
participation

TSG> THIS S TRUE BUT FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON.

TSG> FIRST OFF - ICANN IS A R&D TYPE ORGANIZATION. NOT ONE OF A COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION GROUP OR IT WOULD HAVE ARMS SPECIFICALLY TO DETERMINE WHAT
PROTOCOLS ARE ROUTED AND BY WHOM, AND THE IETF/IESG/IAB WOULD NOT BE THE
SOLE ARBITER OF WHAT WAS AND WAS NOT ROUTED ON THE INTERNET. ICANN HAS LEFT
THIS MISTAKENLY TO THE ISP'S AND CARRIERS AND IT IS CLEARLY A PROBLEM IN
MOVING FORWARD.

TSG> THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT ICANN IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST AND AS A RESULT
PEOPLE ARE BEING DAMAGED BY ITS ACTIONS. MOST OF THIS ULTIMATELY IS DUE TO
THAT IT (THE ICANN/ISOC HIERARCHY) IS A SINGLE SOURCE, TECHNOLOGICALLY BUILT
MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE ARCHITECTED TO INSURE THAT "THE GEEKS MAINTAIN
THEIR CONTROL OF THE INTERNET". THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE AND IS STILL
THE CASE. BUT THE INTERNET IS NO LONGER A SUBSIDIZED R&D PROJECT. IT IS
COMMERCIAL PEERING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE LARGER CARRIERS AND THIS IS A VERY
DIFFERENT SCENARIO THAN THE NSFNET OR THE ARPANET WAS BEFORE IT.

TSG> WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THAT IT  (THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET) NEEDS
TO BE SPLIT INTO SEVERAL TIERS OF ORGANIZATIONS EACH ADDRESSING THE THREE
AVENUES OF WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE ON THIS INTERNET. THE OPERATIONS OF THE
REGISTRARS AND THE ROOT SEGMENTS; THE ADDRESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AND THE
PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

TSG> THE NEXT ISSUE IS EVEN MORE FUNNY NOW THAT THERE IS A BIDDING WAR
BETWEEN NSI AND REGISTER.COM AND SEVERAL OF THE OTHER REGISTRARS; AND THAT
IS THE PROCESS OF INSURING THAT THE REGISTRAR'S LOSING THE CUSTOMERS RELEASE
THE DOMIANS PROPERLY AND WITHOUT PAIN TO THE DOMAIN HOLDER OF THE RECEIVING
REGISTRAR.

TSG> ICANN IN ITS COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE INTERNET HAS FAILED TO DEAL WITH
REALLY RUDIMENTARY ISSUES LIKE WHO ACTUALLY OWNS A DOMAIN NAME, THE CUSTOMER
REGISTERING IT OR THE PUBLICATIONS AGENT, THE REGISTRAR. THIS IS CRITICAL
NOW THAT THERE IS A NEED TO FORCE ONE REGISTRAR TO RELEASE TO ANOTHER.

TSG> ALSO THAT THE REGISTRAR'S DEMAND A 2 MONTH ROYALTY AGAINST THE ABILITY
TO MOVE A DOMAIN IS LIKEWISE INSANE. THAT'S RIGHT YOU MUST WALK AWAY FROM
1/6 OF YOUR PAYMENT IN ORDER TO MOVE YOUR DOMAIN FROM THE MORE EXPENSIVE
REGISTRAR TO THE CHEAPER ONE, AND THAT IS BECAUSE WHY?


2)    because of this limitation with having a California Corporation as the
center point for the Internet Control and Operations management
infrastructure, the ICANN should also not be in charge of the mast root
images. >

TSG> THIS IS TRUE AS WELL. And it was done by techies rather than anyone
thinking thought the uses of the business or its need to be global in
stature. FOR INSTANCE. ICANN HAS NO PLAN ON WHAT TO DO WHEN ONE REGISTRAR
GOES BELLY UP. THE WAY IT LOOKS NOW, THE DOMAINS WOULD ALL BE LOCKED FOR AT
LEAST 60 DAYS WHILE WHOIS WAS UPDATED.

TSG> AND OF COURSE THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS NO DOMAIN PEERING OR ANY
PROCESS FOR REPLICATING THE ZONE TABLES BETWEEN REGISTRARS SUCH THAT OUR
DOMAINS ARE SAFE. NOR IS THERE ANY MECHANISM OF REVOKING ANY DOMAINS STATUS
IN REAL TIME FROM A SPAMMER OR THE LIKE, AND THAT ALSO IS A TRAIT OF THE
GEEKS RUNNING THE WORLD HERE. "HEY, WHY WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO BE EVIL INSIDE
OUR SYSTEM. HUH?"... EVER HEARD THIS BEFORE?

TSG> THESE ARE GLOBAL FAILINGS BY ICANN BUT THEY ARE NOT THE WORST. IT MAY
BE THAT ICANN'S REGISTRAR'S PROCESS CANNOT BE MADE COMMERCIALLY FUNCTIONAL
BECAUSE OF ITS DEPENDENCY ON WHOIS AS THE SOLE ARBITER OF WHO OWNS WHAT .
THERE IS A CLEAR FAILING HEREIN AND I DON'T THINK THAT WITH WHOIS IN ITS
CURRENT STATE, THAT THIS CAN BE FIXED.

TSG> WHOIS ONLY HAS STATEFUL INFO ABOUT WHO SUPPOSEDLY IS OPERATING THE
DOMAIN NOW. NOT WHO IT ACTUALLY BELONGS TO. THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT WE NOW
NEED MORE. MAYBE A "WHOWAS" DIRECTORY AS WELL SO THAT WE CAN TELL MORE DATA
ABOUT THE STATE OF THE REGISTRY ENTRY.

TSG> AND NO UPDATES TO WHOIS CAN POSSIBLY TAKE MORE THAN 48 HOURS TO MANAGE.

    1)    WHICH BECOMES A KEY ISSUE NOW THAT  I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN TOLD BY
ONE REGISTRAR ABOUT IT TAKING AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO DELETE A COUPLE OF
DOMAIN NAMES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED 22 (TWENTY TWO) MONTHS AGO BY THE
CURRENT RULES. THIS IS IMPORTANT SINCE I LET THEM EXPIRE SO THAT I COULD
MOVE THEM WITHOUT HASSLE AND THE REGISTRAR REFUSES TO RELEASE THEM. MY IP'S,
SO THAT I CAN MOVE THEM TO GODADDY IS IN AND THIS IN AND OF ITSELF
RIDICULOUS.

    2)    AS WELL AS THE SAME COMMENTARY FROM THAT REGISTRAR REGARDING THAT
"NO DOMAINS CAN BE MOVED IF IT IS CLOSER THAN 60 DAYS TO THE EXPIRY OF THE
DOMAIN". THIS MEANS FOR SOMEONE THE $35 THAT THE EXPENSIVE REGISTRARS
CHARGE, THAT I AM FORCED TO WALK AWAY FROM $7 IN SERVICE FEES FOR THE LAST
TWO MONTHS SERVICE IN ORDER TO MOVE THE DOMAIN TO THE CHEAPER HOSTING
SERVICES.

> Our Names Council is discussing this topic and has requested our input.

SNIP

>
>
> :)
>
>
> --
> 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