Re: [ga] .ZA administrator says may be forced to shut the ccTLD down

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Joe Baptista wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 eric@hi-tek.com wrote:

> Any good country administration of a cc should be available to explore and or implement more reliable
> sources of inter connectivity.

I would say that in a perfect world - ICANN would of approached the
National Governments and suggested they setup their own top level domain
managers for their own top level domain.  It's a bit of a joke watching
the various attempts to take over or nationalize an existing resource that
they never have had any control over in the first place.
 

I find the current debate over restructuring of ICANN amusing in the sense
that they only look inward and toward their own structure.  One would
have hoped a debate over restructuring would include your suggestions above. 
I must say it is reflective of a US centric conceit.  The world is
where it is at and connecting up differently established domains is where
the proper course lies.  Be they "alternative", inclusive, ccs' or
Martian. (look how television uses the word network and how easy it is
to find your favorite, although that VCR still gives me fits ;-})

As your next post with references makes clear and our recent debacle in AU has illustrated take-overs become quite a queer dog.  As a matter of point I find that countries that have the management/administration lodged originally in academia to be in more serious problems unless they can get some marketing and business perspective into said ivory towers.

>  
> It's much easier to simply setup a national TLD - or several national
> tlds
> - and then the various interested governments can develop those resources
> as they deem fit to do.  Start with a clean slate and move forward.
>  
Until the great ICON Icon falls I suggest a dual model of both the Legacy
and a clean slate.  As a practical matter militaries should be setting
their own up anyhow and if they do it in a modular fashion they can then
duplicate for in/out country commercial viability.
>  
> Frankly it has never been the business of a cc tld administrator to
> explore or implement more reliable sources of inter connectivity. 
> The way
> this show has been run is do as you please and carry on.  Thats
> the nature
> of how the assignments were made.
>  
You should be ashamed of your cynical nature.  That is why our group
works with countries and that is to break this mold for the benefit of
the people.  Internet and technicians and scholars and lawyers should
be our tools and not our masters.
>  
> If a government is concerned about it's security and securing access
> to
> namespace by it's own nationals - then it would be prudent for it to
> run
> it's own national root servers and tlds.  I think this is a much
> better
> proactive approach then begging the US Government for a scrap here
> and
> there.
>  
I would like to be enlightened as to why they should really go the root
server model.  As I am sure you are aware there are now other models. 
Like an overly centralized location of power is dangerous so is an overly
centralized Internet. I should think by their total lack of active involvement
themselves the DoC would welcome such activity.

Sincerely,
Eric

 
regards
joe

> Routing around IANA problems should be of paramount importance and security considerations.
>
> ICANN rooted situational remedies should be but one weapon in an arsenal meant to provide a stable
> and usable internet and resource for any country.  Alternative methodology and inclusive allocations
> should also be a part of a realistic global strategy for any country.
>
> I am hardly waiting for someone to press the point that ICANN standards are International standards
> within a WTO or USBTA agreement.  I believe the DoC will back off any such outlandish position and
> admit to a void in ISO.
>
> Thank you for your insistence on smelling the roses and reality of the unreal.
>
> Eric
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> >
> > > Dear YJ,
> > >
> > > Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country" Codes.
> > >
> > > I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave some of the ccTLDs to the wrong
> > > folk.
> > > They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes and by and through that a Country
> > > Resource.
> >
> > well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.
> >
> > now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that hindsight has
> > any significance here.  all that happened was that postel needed a means
> > of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
> > designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where there and
> > were offering their services.  they rightfully belong to these people.
> > that is the nature of the dns.  the za administrator may do as he pleases.
> >
> > now the fact the south african government are about to make fools of
> > themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the fault of
> > the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of the fact
> > that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take control
> > of their namespace but also increase their national security through the
> > operation of a south african root server network.
> >
> > the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason why
> > the south africans can't follow in the same path.
> >
> > and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure root
> > infrastructure - don't we?
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
>

--
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