DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga-ext] Re: [ga] iCANN's consensus by exclusion

  • To: ga-ext@dnso.org
  • Subject: [ga-ext] Re: [ga] iCANN's consensus by exclusion
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
  • Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 07:47:42 -0700
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F0922860E455A@condor.mhsc.com> <> <035701c0d225$ac72c700$8ce9fea9@hamza>
  • Sender: owner-ga-ext@dnso.org

Patrick and all assembly members,

  Although your suggestion is a good one.  The DNSO GA is also just
as appropriate a forum for such discussions as Jefsey's post.  So your
incorrect implication towards Jefsey is inconsiderate.  Please
such implications in the future if you would be so kind...  Thank you
in advance Patrick for your cooperation....  >;)  I am sure others
will much appreciate your cooperation as well....

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Jefsey
> Would you mind re-posting the following to [ga-ext] External Relations which
> has been set up especially to examine the consensus process?
> I appreciate your views and would like to see them included in the relevant
> debate.  This is perhaps best achieved by selecting the most appropriate
> forum ;-)
> Thank you.
> Patrick Corliss
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 7:14 PM
> Subject: [ga] iCANN's consensus by exclusion
> Dear Harald,
> What you mean is the DNSO does not contribute with enough value, so we
> should get rid of it.
> What is certainly what Staff and some BoD are attempting.
>  > On 10:24 30/04/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
>  > In normal corporate activity, cost centers that do not contribute
> appropriate value to the
>  > effective function of the corporation are shut down; benefit to the
> world outside the corporation > is normally not considered.
>  > I do not think we want to encourage normal corporate procedures here.
> I am afraid you just miss one point: without the DNSO/GA and the @large,
> the iCANN has not the legal basis to exist.   iCANN has only been set-up to
> manage consensus areas and to preserve TM name space stability. In trying
> to preserve TM name space stability trough an increase of TM privileges it
> meets conflicts it tries to solve in obtaining consensuses by exclusion.
> This exclusion policy only makes sense if the excluding parties are
> powerfull enough and solidly tight together: hence the Plan B to create a
> duopoly with VeriSign and the TLD/ccTLD contracts to tight TLDs together in
> a very complex system. The problem is all this is purely artificial and
> will not hold for long confronted to any serious inclusive policy
> (inclusive means everyone: iCANN included) : inclusive name space,
> inclusive DNS with MultiBind, inclusive international understanding at the
> GAC, inclusive development technology, necessary inclusive legal system,
> even inclusive TM protection policy [as a small TM holder I am not happy
> with the WIPO approach], etc....
> I suppose that you personnaly defend the statu quo by desire of network
> stability and I do respect that (I have exactly the same concern). But
> while you seem to think that stability is by statu quo; I think that this
> statu quo is the factor of instability unless we may have the iCANN
> reformed (and not replaced or suppressed).
> Nobody serious wants the disapearance of the iCANN, but how do you want an
> unbalanced duopoly between Staff and VeriSign where Staff has no
> legitimacy, nor funding (except the .org revenue) and a dwindling number of
> allies and flock (look at China) to stay very long. This is mad house.
> The only solution is to revise the iCANN in the way it should have been
> set: in making it the Association of the Internet Communities, ie the
> stability at its roots. This means a secretariat for the IP and the DNS+
> matters supporting dialog on netwide interests through the DNSO and the ASO
> and dialong about stakeholders' interests though the @large. And a funding
> through the TLDs turn over (not on DNs as we have to consider free TLDs and
> new forms of TLDs, since I suppose your desire of statu quo does not
> opposes innovation).
> Cheers.
> Jefsey
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the ga-ext@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-ext" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>