Re: [ga-roots] ICANN Discussion Draft posted May 28

["Page Howe" <page@pagehowe.com>]

As usual ICANN does thier best work on weekends, just before travel
commences to meetings.

The root draft posted on the ICANN site rely's on the power given to ICANN
as a consensus building organization.  Positioning themselves in that
station,  their position on alt/inclusive tld's is understandable.

However, it will only continue to have merit to the extent that ICANN
continues to please more significant stakeholders than it displeases. Even
though it passed the verisign agreements, new TLD's etc;   it still must
face a little fallout each time it creates doubt it is the body that should
be given the mantle as operating in the public trust.

You cant just take the public trust mantle, you still have to earn it.

Additionally, i feel the criteria of experimantation should have been used
in internationalized domains names.

Page Howe
.kids domains inc.




----- Original Message -----
From: "L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] ICANN Discussion Draft posted May 28


> I've seen some blatant misrepresentations, but this is really out there.
It takes the
> truth and twists it all out of whack.
>
> Terms like "in the public interest" are an oxymoron coming from ICANN,
since
> there is anything but the public interest at the heart of their
intentions.  There is lip
> service paid to public input, but no substance.  The public is simply told
what it
> will need, want or prefer.
>
> To refer to interests in financial gain as wrong for operators of alt.TDS
when that is
> precisely the goal of NSI and the other regsitres coming on board with
ICANN is,
> well, simply outrageous.
>
> The technical issues are the same ones we have been discussing with regard
to
> ICANN's introduction of a colliding TLD.  Until recently, ICANN disavowed
(as late
> as Melbourne) technical problems and stated that there are separate name
> spaces and that ICANN did not have to recognize the others.  Suddenly they
> agree there is a global name space.  They now turn that around to say that
they
> ARE the global name space which is just as ridiculous since any computer
in the
> world can set up a root in the public name space.  Is ICANN now going to
say
> they will control the world from MDR, USA?
>
> The reference to RFC 2826 (request for comment, not law, btw) refers to a
unified
> rootzone, but does not in any way preclude multiple root systems.  We ALL
agree
> that there must be a unified "virtual rootzone," which simply means no
> duplications.  ICANN continues to promote the erroneous idea that there
can be
> only one root server system in order to not break the DNS.  It has been
proven for
> years that multiple root systems exist with no problems unless there are
TLD
> collisions.  ICANN now introduces a major collision and states it is the
other guy's
> fault.
>
> Oh, the disinformation that comes from ICANN is both entertaining and
dangerous.
>  As long as ICANN keeps its head firmly planted in the sand, there will be
no end
> to problems.  Where is the cooperation that was to occur when the IANA
functions
> were taken over by newco?  It became vaporized.
>
> So, where do we go from here?  This draft says ICANN has drawn a line in
the
> sand and still refuses to acknowledge reality.
>
>
> On 29 May 2001, at 2:20, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > http://www.icann.org/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm
> >
> > Discussion Draft: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS
> >
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> >
> >
> > This document reaffirms ICANN's commitment to a single, authoritative
> > public root for the Internet Domain Name System (DNS) and to the
management
> > of that unique root in the public interest according to policies
developed
> > through community processes. This commitment is founded on the technical
> > and other advice of the community and is embodied in existing ICANN
policy.
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html