[ga-roots] Re: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Bill,
your point is well made. Just want to add that iCANN is actually the
true USNIC and manages the "legacy", i.e. the USG TLDs.

ccTLDs are the iCANN of heir contries and are just delegating some
fonctions to the iCANN for convenience. This is something iCANN has
tough times to understand and accept. Also that the ccTLDs are very
consistent if trying to make it understand.

Legacy is the seven US TLDs. ccTLDs are external TLDs added by
the iCANN into the iCANN roots. Some non-iCANN TLDs are on same
machines as ccTLDs. Some non-iCANN TLDs are just TLDs delayed
by Louis Touton and most are just TLDs rebuked by Mike Roberts
attitude against the bylaws and MoU. So, without the $50.000 it is
very difficult to make a difference between an iCANN TLD and a
non-iCANN TLD: just dates of iCANN registration.

More and more people understand that. I suppose most of the BoD
has. May be not yet Stuart, but he will (he looks a smart guy). Now
the open roots must develop quickly enough in term of innovation for
the iCANN not to concede to them but to open to the world in
welcoming them.

If we can do that before too many crazy but legitimate schemes like
New.net or NameSlingers develop, we will have saved the stability of
the net. If not, Vint will have killed the net in allocating .biz to
JVStream: I do not see what will stop the routing conflicts, hence
the failure of bug.biz unless its purchases Leah's rights.

Except if  EEC enters the game and stabilizes a TLD industry in
protecting us against US wild schemes, both by the "American Joke"
and by some entrepreneurs? Then the duopoly Staff/VeriSign would
have helped. But EEC is slow.

Montevideo will be of interest. I hope I can make it.

Jefsey

On 17:28 18/06/01, William S. Lovell said:
>NameCritic wrote:
> > [Dassa]:
> > > Why should ICANN talk to competitors.  The only advantages in any
> > > cooperation between the legacy name space and others goes to the
> > > other name spaces.  In any cooperation agreements there has to be
> > > a win/win situation.
> > > I have yet to see any advantages for ICANN, the legacy name space or 
> users
> > > that support any attempts to form an agreement.  I can only see
> > > disadvantages.  So until the arguments are sound in support of any
> > > cooperation I'm afraid it will never get off the ground as a possibility.
> > >
> > That is exactly where you miss the point. It doesn't NEED TO BENEFIT ICANN!
> > The policies are to benefit the users. These are not mega corporations in
> > commercial competition. If it was you would be correct. This is a nonprofit
> > entity that is supposed to be acting on MY behalf and on the behalf of all
> > regular users of the Internet, but instead it is doing just as you stated,
> > acting as if it were in a corporate battle for some market share. You
> > somehow have gotten it in your head that this is what ICANN is supposed to
> > do. Therefore you defend corporate policies that belong somewhere like
> > Verisign, AT&T, and GM. The United Way doesn't make a habit of crushing
> > smaller Nonprofits nor do they attempt to shut them out. That is what ICANN
> > should be following as a nonprofit model not following the other corporate
> > examples.
>
>This is why ICANN needs to revert back to its original, technical only 
>function.
>
>It has been co-opted by the big money interests and no longer acts on behalf
>of the Internet and its users.  And too many people have quietly accepted that
>new role.  (Some years back there was a book about the United States with
>the title "A Nation of Sheep."  That's what we've been seeing over way too
>many years now, and that is what has to end.)
>Bill Lovell

--
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