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

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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.

Jefsey:

Thank you for the tutorial!  Substitute "first USNIC" for "true USNIC" and
I'd concur wholeheartedly.   There is no ownership interest by the U.S. in
those seven so-called "legacy" TLDs, although heavy-handed ICANN
would like the world to believe that there is.

> 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.

ICANN creating a .biz in there of course upsets that apple cart.

> 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.

Neither do I see that.  This Vint deal is perhaps the most pernicious of
the various illegal actions taken by ICANN, and by "illegal" I mean in
defiance of its charter, which says that it should never show favoritism,
etc., etc.

> 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.

Explain, please, how the duopoly has helped??

Thanks for your comments,

Bill Lovell

>
>
> 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

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
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