<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] your comments - The Joe Sims saga/exchange continues...
J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> Sorry Joe, the real issue as I documented it in a private detailed mails -
> so you cannot say we do not try to respond willingly, positively, with well
> made points, out of any dispute and virtual tomatoing - is a real
> misunderstanding of what is the expectation of the world community about
> the ICANN.
You are not the only one that has done this Jefsey. Many others have
as well, and with little understanding or interest displayed or known
on the part of the ICANN BoD and staff...
>
>
> The ICANN is not the Internet owner. We are the owners. All of us, you
> included.
Good point. And made to the ICANN BoD and staff on many occasions
as well. But Jefsey and all, I am sure that Joe recognizes this although
his along with other ICANN staff and a few ICANN BOD members
sometimes act or behave as though THEY ALONE own the internet,
the DNS, the IP Registries, and control the Protocol standards and development.
Although this may simply be a perception problem, it is none the less
now a HUGE problem for ICANN as the REBID consideration is
now gaining allot of support...
>
>
> You own 1/550.000.000 of the Internet and your share alone, as mine, as
> anyone here is no real worth if we are alone.
>
> Now we are organized at two community levels. Local and Global. Our Trustee
> for the local community should be/is the ccTLD manager (RFC 920/1591). Our
> Trustee for the Global community should be/is the IANA.
Yes if these organizations are TRUSTED. The IANA as you know in the
past has had severe trust problems before ICANN was in existence.
>
>
> 2 questions:
>
> 1. First Question : ccTLDs have well defined that their legitimacy comes
> from their local community (Best Practices in MdR 2000). ICANN has not done
> the same yet. ICANN legitimacy can come in three ways.
>
> - from the USG as the owner of the former private Arpanet system - they
> dont want it anymore
> - from the owners at large - but you say that the delegation of trust
> though votes is a problem
> - form the owners' trustees - the ccTLDs and partly the gTLDs.
Well Jefsey I think you are leaving out a couple of other Key elements.
The IETF/IESG and the IP registries...
>
>
> As long as you do not accept that, none of your proposition will stand as
> the owners and their trustees and their trustees supports (Govs, laws,
> consumers, techs, etc..) are eventually bigger than any "Internet Yalta"
> you might form. As soon as you accept this for the IANA, you will have full
> support from every one.
Good point here as well Jefsey. Well done! I would add that when the IANA
and the IP registries also through the ASO or some future equivalent
become trusted and recognize the LOCAL control aspect from a
country stand point at least, such trust in ICANN will not be forthcoming.
This has not been accomplished, and it doesn't look now as though with the
present ICANN BoD and Staff that is will be accomplished. Hence
again the growing interest and consideration of the now REBID
option voted upon by the DNSO GA members.
>
>
> 2. Second Question : apart from its duties to the IANA function, the ICANN
> may certainly claim the right to organize the "legacy" space (JonPostel's
> Private Net) from the USG legitimacy. The way you organize it is up to you:
> it has its own problems with the size of VRSN, the ACPA and the UDRP... I
> however feel you will succeed if you try to join the standard way rather
> then building a different one.
Yes building a different one is what is referred to by the ICANN BoD and
staff as the "ICANN Experiment".
>
>
> Anyway, this gives you no right over non-US namespaces. I understand that
> you would like to have some and rule the world as an American world. But I
> am afraid France, China, UK, Japan or Burkina-Fasso are grown enough to
> have heir own management of their namespace. And their Govs have the right
> and the duty to their own citizens, to have an independent digital
> international relations policy.
Yes these countries as well as the EU have their own independent digital
policies and more countries are in various stages of developing theirs
as well that greatly differ from the "ICANN Experiment" . These
need to be addressed individually, and most importantly with the full
active participation of the Stakeholder/user community, which as
you earlier pointed out Jefsey, are the owners...
>
>
> What you risk to obtain is the contrary of what you want. Today the ccTLDs
> feel dependent from the ICANN/US root. But China has already made the move,
> and I suspect that from the Stuart attempt to take over the root system,
> several others consider it. If they keep concerted (with the ICANN) it will
> be OK and will improve the global DNS stability and resilience. But if they
> dont ...
Part, and many would and have argued that to a great degree, diversity
in the DNS is it's single biggest stability factor as well as greatly improving
resilience. However the ICANN BoD and staff steadfastly refuse or
continue to resist this precept or fact. As such, the continuing moving
away from the "ICANN Experiment" will indeed impact ecommerce
security and resilience accordingly.
>
>
> jfc
>
> On 21:15 30/05/02, Joe Sims said:
> >I appreciate the clarification. And you have certainly highlighted some
> >issues that are important to some people. The issue of cc's that act like
> >gTLDs is a particularly relevant issue; if a cc registry is going to
> >aggressively solicit name registrations from people all over the world,
> >shouldn't it have to meet the same minimum standards as do gTLDs? Such
> >things as escrow requirements to protect against failure, dispute
> >resolution procedures or something equivalent to guard against
> >cybersquatting, whois systems that actually work so people can find our who
> >to contact when an issue arises -- stuff like this? It is one thing to
> >argue that a ccTLD that restricts registrations to its nationals or
> >residents of the country of its charter should have the "right" to do what
> >it wants on these points, since those adversely affected always have
> >recourse to the national government, local courts, etc. But when the
> >registry decides to take advantage of the stable global DNS to attract
> >registrants that, as a practical matter, do not have those protections, and
> >can do so only because the rest of the world is working together through
> >ICANN to maintain the global infrastructure that permits that behavior,
> >that seems to me to be a different situation altogether. As I understand
> >the ICANN position, there is no desire to interfere in any way with local
> >policy development; that should be up to the local community. But when the
> >registry takes actions that have global implications or effects, it should
> >be subject, as are all other similarly situated registries, to the global
> >policy development process. What I take from your post is that you want
> >someone else to shoulder the burdens of preserving and protecting the
> >global DNS that makes it possible for the ccTLDs to function, but to
> >basically leave you alone to do with it what you please (although maybe you
> >would be willing to contribute to the purely mechanical work of keeping
> >your database records straight). In antitrust economics, this is called
> >"free-riding" and is generally not considered something to be admired or
> >protected.
> >
> >
> >Joe Sims
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > DPF
> >
> > <david@farrar.co To: "Joe Sims"
> > <jsims@JonesDay.com>
> > m> cc:
> > barrister@chambers.gen.nz, ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] your
> > comments
> >
> >
> > 05/30/02
> > 02:48
> >
> > PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:35:52 -0400, "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
> >wrote:
> > >Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the
> >
> > > ICANN project since its inception
> >
> > >
> > >It is certainly true that some ccTLDs have been very supportive, and it is
> > >also true that many ccTLDs will say privately that they do not support the
> > >more radical statements of their "leaders," but as far as I can tell, your
> > >position has been that the cc's that you speak for will come into ICANN
> > >only if ICANN agrees that they get to have a veto over any ICANN policies
> > >that they don't care to follow.
> >
> >This is not my understanding. the position AFAIK is that on a narrow
> >range of technical policy issues, ccTLDs are happy to adhere to a
> >global policy in the interests of making the Internet work. In fact
> >they all pretty much adhere to them now. Such policies may be number
> >of name servers, geographical diversity of name servers etc.
> >
> >What ccTLDs are not keen to do is give ICANN power to impose the UDRP
> >(for example) on them. Or to be able to unilaterally declare that
> >certain ccTLDS which do not restrict registrations will in future be
> >treated like gTLDs.
> >
> > >We might be able to agree that all parties
> > >could have perfomed better over the last years, and by that I mean all
> > >parties -- the GAC, cc administrators, ICANN staff and Board, and
> > >individual national governments. But there is still a core issue: do the
> > >operators of these particular TLD registries have any obligation to the
> > >global Internet community, in addition to their obvious responsibilities
> >to
> > >their local Internet community?
> >
> >Yes - the obligation is on narrow technical issues of
> >inter-operability. But no there is not an obligation to be forced to
> >spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for example on changing all
> >their registry databases to conform to a standard whois specification
> >which is not a technical necessity but a preference of certain people.
> >
> > >If they do, ICANN is the vehicle for
> > >establishing policies that reflect that obligation to the global
> >community.
> > >This has been the position of the staff, and the Board, and the GAC, from
> > >the beginning, and until this principle is accepted, it seems unlikely
> >that
> > >we will make much progress.
> >
> >The ccTLDs have stated they will accept ICANN policies but only in
> >certain pre defined areas. I do not believe they will not give carte
> >blanche decision making authority to ICANN, especially when ICANN has
> >shown itself numerous times to ignore the advice of SOs on matters
> >which affect them.
> >
> > >From your posting and its continuing criticism
> > >of the GAC principles, I don't see much sign of progress. Nevertheless, I
> > >look forward to your upcoming meeting, and hope that it will help bring
> > >closure to what has to date been an unproductive debate.
> >
> >I would also ask why ICANN has to be the body to establish global
> >ccTLD policies? WHy not a world federation of ccTLDs? Now that ICANN
> >has abandoned any pretence to being a representative body, why is it
> >more suited to decide what is good for the global internet community
> >compared to say such a federation of ccTLDS. At least the majority of
> >them allow individual registrants the ability to join and vote on
> >policy issues.
> >
> >DPF
> >
> >(PS - note once again I speak for myself not for InternetNZ in this
> >forum)
> >--
> >david@farrar.com
> >ICQ 29964527
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Part 1.2 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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: 972-244-3801 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
>>>
|