RE: [wg-review] (Charter) Has everyone read the ICANN Name.Space charter?

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

12/31/00 2:53:14 AM, "Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <MarshM@diebold.com> wrote:

>Oh, please stop.  This was part of the Name.space application.  If you are just now reading this, you 
are way out of touch with the issues.
>
>Gene...


Alright Gene, let me put it this way:  Keeping in mind that this was part of the application for the listed 
TLDs, would you care to comment on the opening statements in the Name.Space charter namely:

"The toplevel global internet namespace is a global commons."

That is certainly a rather sweeping statement.  Where did they ever get such an idea?

" With this charter, and in accordance with the People's Communication Charter a fair structure for 
Self Governance of the Global Internet Namespace is being established."

What exactly is the People's Communication Charter?  

 "We believe that no single Government, Corporation, Organization, Group, Individual or otherwise 
ought to make any exclusive claim to any individual zone in the toplevel and generic second.level or 
any other generic namespace because exclusive noncompetitive ownership of such namespace 
harms the public interest. Basic principles of fairness dictate that a generic namespace should serve 
the greatest public good as a resource, not narrow commercial interests as a trademark."

Is it any surprise that none of the Name.Space TLDs were approved?

On what authority are the following statements based?  Are they not contradictory?

"No one shall operate parallel namespaces in intranets, virtual private networks, etc. in any manner 
that interferes with the Global Internet Namespace. This includes, but is not limited to, operating 
conflicting, redundant or non-unique namespaces that conflict with established global addresses.
Private ownership and branding of generic toplevel domains is not appropriate on the global internet. 
Any such use shall solely exist in non-global, private intranets and virtual private nets. The right to 
express oneself in the creation of an internet.name is guaranteed by the the First Amendment to the 
US Constitution and the People's Communication Charter, and is highly encouraged."

I'm puzzled...  For a simple application, these folks are making some pretty interesting statements.  As I 
already asked, just what exactly is the People's Communication Charter?

As for being out of date, it's a wonder anything anybody says is ever still relevant to anything in 
ICANN's perpetually PRESENT MOMENT!  You know, I'll bet Jon Postel did not include the 
"Expiration  Date" along the top of each page of his "Drafts"...   

Of course, with all these short deadlines, and holiday overtime WG's it's easy for one to see how 
human beings (qua individuals with a rational capacity and "inalienable" rights) are themselves an 
anachronistic concept within the purview of a body such as ICANN.  

Let's discuss the break-up option, as it appears to be a very real possibility on the horizon.  Are we 
back to national or continental zones of influence?  What about COM, NET, ORG in such a scenario?  



Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc.