Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]
Excellent, focussed mail! Thank you Don.
"If the community wants democracy and a voice in Internet governance, then
the community will need to create it..."
Precisely... so... let's set about creating it... a starting point is the
creation of a focus/umbrella for an alliance of sympathetic groups and
individuals, from across various constituencies.
There are many organisations (and many other countries) who would at least
be prepared to engage in a dialogue and build up a forum... a forum and
alliance which would, in the end, attract media attention as an alternative
way of doing things... in the face of ICANN's self-interest, autocracy, and
opaque undemocratic governance.
Many streams flow down from the mountainsides... when they converge, they
form a river.
What is needed is an alliance and an intelligent critique, carried out
across a number of fronts. The alliance may draw in the comments of various
ccTLDs; the alternate root; the at large movement (I mean the real one, not
the ALAC invention); as well as parties which fear refute top-down
globalisation of DNS resources.
People don't all have to agree on every point... they need to converge.
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <email@example.com>; George Kirikos <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]
> It is the lobbyists/special interests and their cash who inevitably
> get what they want. Community consensus, and what's really in the best
> interest of the Internet Community, is clearly irrelevant to ICANN.
> The Internet Community was strongly against WLS and the Names Council
> opposed it as well. It is abundantly clear that VeriSign's money was
> much more attractive to the ICANN Board than doing the right thing for
> the Community, the Registrars and for fair and healthy competition.
> It is also very clear that with this ICANN reorganization and the
> assassination of the GA, ICANN has every intention to completely
> stifle the voice of the Community or, perhaps better said, to mold
> that voice into whatever ICANN wants it to be.
> ICANN has, indeed, become part of the very monopoly which it was
> charged to dissolve. Their actions just with .com, .net and WLS speak
> Maybe it is time to consider letting ICANN, VeriSign and the
> "insiders" play, all by themselves, in the sandbox, which is clearly
> what they want. Maybe it is time for the Community to abandon this
> inequity and prove to ICANN and the insiders that it is not the
> Community which is irrelevant, but it is they who are the irrelevant
> I have never endorsed the Alternate Root, but I can certainly see the
> merit of it, particularly in the face of what ICANN has come to be and
> of what ICANN has come to stand for.
> If the Community wants equity, democracy and a voice in Internet
> governance, then the Community will need to create it. It's not
> happening within the ICANN structure and the evidence shows it's
> ICANN's intent for it never to happen.
> Friday, May 30, 2003, 1:32:51 PM, George Kirikos <email@example.com>
> GK> Hello,
> GK> --- Andy Gardner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> And if it was, even a half-arsed programmer could add rate limiting
> >> to
> >> the SRS protocol very easily. Surely Verisign's got a spare
> >> half-arsed
> >> programmer sitting around somewhere?
> GK> Exactly -- throttling was a trivial fix, and solved the problem. See
> GK> the February 2002 document where Verisign answered that and other
> GK> questions, namely B.2. and B.3.
> >> Or maybe they're not interested in the easy fix?
> GK> The technical problem was fixed long ago -- the drop system is
> GK> functioning in an orderly manner every day at 2 pm Eastern time for
> GK> com/net. Verisign only trots out the load issue when they want to pull
> GK> the strings of the "technologists" in ICANN, suggesting that there
> GK> still needs to be an engineering solution, even though the problem is
> GK> solved. This pulls the wool over the eyes of those in ICANN who have
> GK> only a cursory knowledge of WLS, by framing the debate in such a way
> GK> that PRESUMES a problem. There's no problem whatsoever at present.
> GK> The true "problem" is that Verisign can't abuse its monopoly position
> GK> under the status quo, and needs WLS to soak consumers and registrars
> GK> with unnecessary charges, for a service already offered in a
> GK> manner at the registrar layer.
> GK> Sincerely,
> GK> George Kirikos
> GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
> GK> --
> GK> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> GK> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
> email@example.com http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html