Re: [ga-roots] response

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 06:24 PM 6/18/01 +0100, Page Howe wrote:

>its always interetsing to read verisign's annual disclosure to the SEC- if
>verisgn can admit this, why cant stuart lynn -this is the disclosure that
>verisgn will rely on in its defense when if root is broken, or if ICANN
>fails to survive.
>
>from verisgn annual report ot the SEC
>
>Our web presence services and registry services businesses also could be
>harmed if a significant number of Internet service providers decided not to
>route Internet communications to or from domain names registered by us or if
>a significant number of Internet service providers decided to provide
>routing to a set of domain name servers that did not point to our domain
>name zone servers

Verisign could end up faces SEC charges, shareholder lawsuits and have it's 
stock dropped from the NASDAQ.

ICANN doesn't have to make honest representations under SEC rules and 
doesn't appear to be held accountable to the internet community.

>so lets all agree its the ISP's, not ICANN who have the power to pick "the"
>root.

Take it one step further. It's every DNS server administrator and every end 
user that has the power to point their DNS settings wherever they want. 
Vote with your DNS.

http://support.open-rsc.org/How_To/

>In my opinion, as we said in our application for the .kids TLD to ICANN,
>ICANN will only have the "power" over the Internet to the extent it meets
>the needs of its consituencies.  i dont think it is.....
>
>I applaud ICANN for staying together on a limited budget and trying to
>please multiple aims and goals, but was the idea of a domain tax so gagable
>to people that we didnt create an organization with the best and the
>brightest from the start, and create a funded mechanism for receiving
>constituency input from the start, and didnt create a line of communication
>with registrants from the start.. and so on
>
>page howe
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Simon Higgs" <simon@higgs.com>
>To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:37 AM
>Subject: Re: [ga-roots] response
>
>
> > At 06:57 PM 5/28/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >Response to Mueller's:
> > > > Analysis of the Crispin Internet-draft.
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, Mueller apparently did not actually read the draft,
> > >so it is hard to respond.  However, to correct a couple of inaccuracies:
> > >
> > > > The draft is based on two assumptions, both easily questioned.
> > > >
> > [...]
> > >conclusion: ICANN *cannot* approve multiple roots.  Indeed, as a matter
> > >of policy, ICANN must do everything it can to discourage them, which
> > >implies that ICANN must never give any credence to TLDs that were
> > >developed through alternate roots, since such acknowledgement would
> > >simply encourage the proliferation of alternate roots and alternated
> > >TLDs.
> >
> > What a load of hooey. Jon Postel of the IANA *ENCOURAGED* the first
> > alt.root as a training ground for the Draft Postel applicants. It was a
> > testbed/proof-of-concept for the inclusion of new TLDs into the IANA root.
> > The alt.root was never supposed to survive past October 1996, when the
>IANA
> > applicants were supposed to be put into the IANA root. Problem solved, and
> > the alt.root goes bye-bye.
> >
> > But, of course, the whole Internet Community got screwed by the IAHC, and
> > those working on Draft Postel kept their root going. After Kashpureff blew
> > himself out of the game at the Dec 1996 newdom BOF, Denninger formed eDNS
> > on the now-censored iahc-discuss mailing list. Quite a consensus for the
> > IAHC/gTLD-MOU crowd - to have an alt.root created in their midst as a
> > direct result of the bogus gTLD-MOU. And what did the IAHC do when faced
> > with this consensus? They ignored it and censored the web site mailing
>list
> > archive instead.
> >
> > So, of course, DoC steps in, tosses the gTLD-MOU in the trash where it
> > belongs, and forms ICANN. In the meantime, the Internet community is
> > getting really pissed off. As a result of the continued lack of access to
> > the legacy root, more folk step up to the plate and form their own
> > alt.roots. And it will continue ad infinitum until those behind the legacy
> > root get a clue.
> >
> > Of course, the spineless, and gutless thing to do in this situation is
> > "never give any credence to TLDs that were developed through alternate
> > roots". Never admit your mistakes, and steamroller over the internet
> > community as a grand dictator. I have to say that Kent's been totally
> > consistent throughout, and the resulting damage is now in the $$$billions.
> >
> > One last thing. ICANN have a contract to fulfill the IANA function. Since
> > IANA used the first alt.root as a test-bed, it's now ICANN's job to fix
> > this mess. Routing around the ICANN root (a single-point-of-failure), the
> > Internet community has already spoken.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > --
> > DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.
> >
> > --
> > 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


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

--
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