Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #634
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 27 2001            Volume 01 : Number 634

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:05:59 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  gTLD Constituency Memo 

Dear Chuck,

Thank you for forwarding the questions posed by the gTLD constituency Task 
Force (on the ccSO formation) to the General Assembly for its review and 
consideration.  We appreciate the courtesy and look forward to ongoing 
dialogue.

Let me continue the discussion with a parable:  A homeowners association 
decides to create a luxury apartment building... They engage an architectural 
firm which hires a number of contractors to get the job done and which pays 
them as required.   One day, some of the contractors (who handle a sizable 
amount of work) decide that (for various reasons) they will withdraw from the 
Builders' Association (which hasn't been sufficiently responsive to their 
needs) and will form their own Union in order to better engage in collective 
bargaining.   They then demand seats on the Architectural Firm's Board (the 
unspoken challenge being that if their demands are not met, they will no 
longer work on this Apartment Building).  Under normal circumstances, the 
Architect would first consult with his firm, and then report the labor 
difficulties to the Homeowner's Association.   But in this particular case, 
the Staff of the Architectural Firm is implicated in the problem (as revealed 
by a press release from the new Union:  "Members have previously noted the 
call from the Staff that we should form a peer organisation").

How should the Homeowners Association deal with the Architectural Firm if it 
can no longer technically coordinate the project?  How should the 
Architectural Firm deal with its meddling staff?  Should Union demands be 
met, or should the Firm act to bust the Union?   What happens to all the 
other smaller and larger contractors that have faithfully lived up to their 
end of the contract -- will there be equitable treatment for all?  

Here's another way of looking at the problem...

an analogy..., consider the possibility that one-eighth of the members of the 
gTLD constituency (let's say the NSI Registry, by way of example) voted to 
withdraw from the DNSO in order to form a separate SO...  (this would be 
comparable to the 31 out of 240+ ccTLDs having voted to withdraw).

This would leave seven-eighths of the constituency members still in the DNSO. 
 Given this to be the case, why should the Board (using this example) 
consider granting SO status to NSI, the break-away group?  

Yes, like the ccTLDs, NSI could argue (paraphrasing the language in the ccSO 
Formation Statement) that 'the absence of Board representation, and the 
unlikeliness of this occurring, despite the fact that com/net/org domains 
constitute the vast majority of all domain names and that this member is 
expected to contribute the bulk of the ICANN budget is a particular feature 
of the problems of the current relationship.'   

Similarly, NSI could also argue that 'the developing relationship between 
members and the staff and Board of ICANN has more and more assumed the nature 
of an independent Support Organisation ("SO"). NSI expects to sign individual 
contracts with ICANN, and has prepared Best Practices and Contract documents 
for use of the gTLD community.   NSI tends to communicate directly with the 
Board and staff outside of the DNSO and Names Council framework.' 

Even so, are these arguments sufficient to warrant the creation of a separate 
SO?  If they are (in this analogy), then perhaps NSI should be entitled to 
three seats on the ICANN Board.   As for me, I don't find the arguments, as 
currently delineated, sufficiently compelling.

I am sure that we would all appreciate an informed discussion.  The 
re-structuring of ICANN and/or the DNSO is a significant challenge that can 
be best supported by a bottom-up community-based consensus process.  Perhaps 
we can begin by asking our former ccTLD representatives (an obviously 
impacted party) if they could shed some light on their position...

It would also be beneficial to hear the views of the other constituencies.

The ccSO Formation Statement may be found at:  
http://www.wwtld.org/ccSO_Formation_Statement-Stockholm_010601.htm
The gTLD Constituency Memo:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00039.html

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

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:08:42 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.

Yes.  That is the same presumption you would use to say "if heart 
surgeons think a procdure is dangerous, dump it". 

>  However, the
> Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
> or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> users.

Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if 
doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.  If we 
got practically universal agreement among doctors that a procedure was a 
bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.

The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand the issues.  And, 
despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these lists really 
aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.

(*) for those who may not be familiar with the idiom, "rocket science" 
is a slang phrase meaning "truly esoteric and specialized technical 
speciality". 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 19:10:08 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:19:21 -0400, "Gomes, Chuck"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>The attached document is a memo from the gTLD Constituency that contains a
>list of questions that we believe need to be asked regarding the possible
>establishment of an ICANN ccTLD Supporting Organization.

Thanks for starting some discussion off.  My 2c on your questions are
below.  Please note that while I hold office within a ccTLD I do not
speak for them.

>I.  Contractual questions
>
>A.	Will it be a condition of creation of a new SO that the ccTLDs
>be required to enter into a contract with ICANN? 

I think this would put the cart before the horse.  Having a ccSO would
allow individuals ccTLDs to then enter into contracts with ICANN but
without this none seem too keen at present.

I imagine the ccSO will have a contract with ICANN but that will be
different to individual ccTLDs having one.

>Will that contract
>require compliance with consensus policies?  If not, especially with
>regard to open ccTLDs, would that constitute inequitable treatment in
>violation of ByLaw and contract requirements?

Any attempt to impose policies across 250 ccTLDs which operate under
250 sets of laws will IMO be doomed to fail.  Unless such policies
were of totally bland generality (The ccTLD shall have a dispute
resolution policy) it just won't work.

Splitting ccTLDs into "open"and "closed"is problematic also.
Certainly some ccTLDs such as dot tv compete to a fair degree with
gTLDs are marketed as such.  

However others like dot nz do not promote themselves at all, do not
pretend dot nz stands for anything other than New Zealand, yet do
allow anyone in the world to register purely as an efficiency measure.
It just costs too much to manually vet each registration - we want
quick, cheap and efficient.

dot nz would IMO be very resistant to being classified as an open TLD
subject to ICANN consensus policies rather than its own local
consensus policies.

>B.	What should be the relationship between a ccTLD-ICANN contract
>on re-delegation to a general ICANN policy on presumptive right to
>renewal for uTLDs (unsponsored TLDs) or sTLDs (sponsored TLDs)?

I do not believe limited terms for ccTLDs is useful.  Under RFC1591 I
submit that as long as a ccTLD is keeping the local internet community
(which includes the local Govt) happy there is no need to have a fixed
term contract and hence presumptive rights of renewals.

Many ccTLDs are non profit, which is different from some gTLD
registries who are commercial businesses seeking to make money (not
saying this is bad) from their registry.

>II.  Reasons to have SOs
>
>A.	If the rationale for creation of a ccTLD SO is (at least in
>part) based on ensuring the payment of fees to ICANN, would that
>rationale also support creation of other SOs more directly reflecting
>the interests and views of others who also pay a high portion of ICANN
>fees?

I do not believe the rationale is purely paying of fees.  It is also
to do with the nature of the relationship with ICANN Board and staff,
with fulfilling ICANN's mission from DOC to have wide international
support, and also the growing realisation that gTLD policy making has
little in common with needs of ccTLDs.

If one creates SOs purely on who has the money, then ICANN is not
representative of the Internet Community.  

>B.	If the rationale for a ccTLD SO involves assuring adequate
>representation on the ICANN Board of those whose interests may diverge
>and who are bound by contracts with ICANN, would that support creation
>of numerous additional SOs to reflect the distinct interests of gTLDs,
>sTLDs, registrars, registrants, etc.?=20

The ccTLDs are a very well defined community whose sphere of interests
have IMO little in common with those involved with gTLDs.

gTLD registries, Registrars, registrants all have inter-linked
interests in the DNSO.

Finally it should be remembered that some/many ccTLDs are not just
registries but include representation from registrants and registrars
from their local internet community.  Each ccTLD to some degree could
be viewed as a mini DNSO and the ccSO is the collection of all of them
coming together.

>C.	Are sTLDs sufficiently differently situated from uTLDs, with
>respect to their contractual relationships with ICANN and the role of
>Sponsoring Organizations in the development of policies, that they
>should have their own SO?=20

Possibly yes.  This is an issue worth considering.

>III.  Creation of policies
>
>A.	If ccTLDs had their own SO, would domain name policy issues be
>required to be referred, routinely, to two or more SOs? Will that
>increase or diminish the difficulty of developing and documenting
>consensus policies?

Not going to happen often.  Few policies would take in both gTLDs and
ccTLDs.  a gTLD policy would go through the DNSO only while a ccTLD
policy (such as best practices for example) would go through ccSO only
as not applicable to gTLDs. 

>B.	Would a ccTLD SO have multiple constituencies, allowing groups
>affected by ccTLD policies to participate in ccTLD policy creation?=20

At first I thought this might be a good idea but realised that at
least in the case of dot nz those groups already participate through
our open membership system at a local level which is where many people
prefer to participate.

I would rather promote ccTLDs having open processes at the local level
rather than try to have say a global group of registrants who would
have little in common because each ccTLD is so different.

>C.	Would gTLD registries have input into ccTLD SO deliberations
>or would ccTLDs have input into DNSO deliberations? If not, how would
>disagreements be resolved?  Would the Board resolve such disputes? How
>would consensus among affected parties be developed and documented?

No IMO.

>IV.  Effect on the DNSO
>
>A.	If a ccTLD SO were created, what structural changes in any
>remaining DNSO would be necessary?=20

Well the three spots on the NC they take up could be taken up by the
Individual's Constituency.  If they leave before this happens NC drops
to 18 members only which is no hassle.

>B.	Would current contractual documents be required to be revised
>if the Names Council no longer existed or if it was not a definitive
>source of judgment on consensus policies impacting gTLD registries?
>Should gTLD registries agree to any such changes?

No change is needed.  The changes of structures does not invalidate
decisions reached under previous structures.

>V.  Board membership
>
>A.	If a ccTLD SO were allowed to elect a specified number of
>members of the ICANN Board, would that diminish the role of the DNSO
>in selecting Board members? Would it increase the number of Board
>members familiar with registry operations?

It may decrease the numbers yes.  There seems to be a principle that
all SOs get equal number of Board members so if ccSO set up I would
suggest 2 reps per SO, which means DNSO loses one.

Personally I don't think all SOs are equal and would suggest DNSO has
3, ASO has 2, ccSO has 2 and PSO has 2.  Possibly even PSO has one.

Either way likely to have more Board members familiar with registry
operations IMO.

And goes without saying at large board members should equal the number
of SO Board members or even better be one greater.

>B.	Would creation of an sTLD SO increase the representation of
>the "registry voice" on the Board? If sTLDs declined to continue to
>participate in the DNSO, would that force the creation of a separate
>SO for each category of registry?

I am not aware sTLDs have clamoured for a separate SO and believe we
can get too hypothetical.  If they can make a good case for it, let's
hear the case.

>C.	If the main job of the Board is to recognize documented
>consensus, should Board membership be reallocated to assure that every
>group that could prevent a consensus (or unmask a false claim of
>consensus) on important policy issues has an appropriate voice?

Might need a Board of 100 to do that.

>VI.  Structural proposals
>
>A.	What structural changes will make sense in light of ICANN's
>purpose?

Have suggested Board allocation above.

>B.	Should restructuring provide an occasion for reallocating fees
>and costs across a wider array of groups?

These can be examined at any time and need not be linked.  We have an
annual budgetary process for this.

>C.	Should a restructuring lead to substantial innovations in
>meeting structure and use of online deliberation tools?

I don't think the issues are linked.

>D.	Would a realignment of interests around SOs, combined with
>separate at large elections of a few Board members and the creation of
>an open forum for public participation in each SO, help to resolve
>disputes concerning representation of registrants and individuals,
>diminish complaints regarding capture of the DNSO by particular
>constituencies and overlaps between DNSO constituencies, fix the
>dysfunctional performance of the General Assembly and Names Council,
>and remedy other problems?

I think this is taking the proposal for *one* extra SO too far.  This
almost seems to be suggesting all constituencies become an SO which
would not fix the DNSO problems, merely move them up a level.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:41:41 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:09 PM
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> > doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.
> 
> Yes.  That is the same presumption you would use to say "if heart 
> surgeons think a procdure is dangerous, dump it". 

No it is not. The fundimental difference is that hearts aren't artifacts and
heart surgeons aren't [yet] artifacers. Computer Science isn't a science.
It is an art, wholly created by man. As such we understand it very much
better than we understand medicine. We can't create organic neurons, but we
can create cybernetic neurons and even entire neural networks. The entire
field of Computer Science is a fabrication of mankind, a pure artifact of
our civilization. It is arguably, the only field where this is the case.

> >  However, the
> > Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
> > or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> > users.
> 
> Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if 
> doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.  If we 
> got practically universal agreement among doctors that a 
> procedure was a bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.

The analogy breaks down very badly here. As Computer Scientists, we both
recognise that we have vastly more control over our work product, which we
create, than Medical Doctors whom, by comparison, aren't much better than
technicians. As a result, the same limits do not apply.

> The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
> science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand the 
> issues.  And, 
> despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these lists really 
> aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.
> 
> (*) for those who may not be familiar with the idiom, "rocket 
> science" is a slang phrase meaning "truly esoteric and specialized
technical 
> speciality". 

I don't know about you, but I've been writing communications drivers since
long before even the IAB existed. This was ages before the IETF existed,
which was mostly populated by academics and not working engineers. The
engineers hung out in the IEEE, in those days, even if some of us did join
the ACM. When was the last time you baked a seven-layer ISO cake, if ever?
But I digress, there are probably only three or four of us here. That's
nowhere near a majority. How many of us are active in the IETF? The IETF
includes a very small portion of the Computer Science community.

The fundmental difference, between rocket science and computer science is
that rocket scientists are limited by physics, Computer scientists aren't.
Yes, it may take a while for computer manufacturing capability to catch up
to some of our artifacts (ie. rendering engines), but that doesn't stop us
from conceiving and building the artifacts. The only limits are E. Dykstra's
seven non-computable tasks.

The problem is that the IAB and the IETF have forgotten this and are
treating, long established, arbitrary convenience limits as if they were
laws of physics (they aren't). When that fact is pointed out to them, they
shout it down with religious zeal and the opposition is so strenously
harassed that they are encouraged to leave participation in the IETF. IOW,
it is a very hostile environment.

Given this environment and those conditions, it is small wonder that the PSO
is exclusively populated with those of similar mind-set. They've
brain-washed each other that way. To then hold up that body as a true
representation of all the experts in the world, in that speciality, is, to
say the least, absurd and disingenuous in the extreme.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:41:53 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:52 PM
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 07:43:37PM -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > 
> > > > In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems,
> > >
> > > What they argue really isn't very important -- they are 
> so full of hype
> > > you can't tell what they are talking about anyway.  What 
> matters is what
> > > they *do*, and they have *done* is create an alternate root.
> > 
> > Actually, it's more of an enhancement to the existing 
> root... like an
> > amplification, if you will.
> 
> You are just parroting hype.  The fact is that new.net has 
> conflicting TLDs already.

... and you are just parroting FUD. I'm sorry, but I just can't let you get
away with this. New.Net didn't have any conflicting TLDs until ICANN chose
to create new conflicting TLDs. Patrick and I stood there together and
watched them do it! They barely hedged away from, spitefully, awarding WEB
to someone other than IOD (which would have been WAY over the top). The were
fully aware of PacRoot's BIZ, and INFO as well. Once ICANN did that, NewNet
had full license to return the favor, in kind, as far as I'm concerned. No
amount of sugar is going to sweeten the taste of the Marina Del Rey session,
of the ICANN. It was tainted with pure spiteful arrogance, all the way down
the line. Vint was the only saving grace and even he was only doing it to
keep the ICANN from looking too slimey. That session was the opening round
of the name wars. It's been escalating ever since.

> >  The simple brute fact is that ICANN and the USG
> > had not foreseen the inventive approach employed by new.net
> 
> Sorry, once again I'm afraid you don't know what you are 
> talking about. 
> There is nothing at all new in what new.net is doing. 

Well, one or two new tweaks. Some of  which, I don't like.

I sure hope that this is a sign of advanced senility on your part. Because,
I really wouldn't like to think that you were that dishonest.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:27:03 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

This doesn't make sense to me either:-

on 7/27/01 1:08 AM, Kent Crispin at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>> A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
>> doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.
> 
> Yes.  That is the same presumption you would use to say "if heart
> surgeons think a procdure is dangerous, dump it".

The Protocol community is certainly a consideration, but not the only one,
and that's why it has 3 seats on the BoD, not 19.

> 
>> However, the
>> Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
>> or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
>> users.
> 
> Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if
> doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.  If we
> got practically universal agreement among doctors that a procedure was a
> bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.

We are forced to dump "universal agreements" all the time. It was not the
world that had to change from flat to round, but our perception of it.

> 
> The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
> science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand the issues.  And,
> despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these lists really
> aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.

I doubt you understand stem cell research, but I would not deny you an
opinion and the right to be heard on the issue of making human body parts.

Technical innovation and social impact are inextricably linked.

Regards,
Joanna

<snip>

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:35:01 +0200
From: Michael Haberler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [centr-legal] Domain Council at .AT - facts

AAt 04:12 27.07.2001 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>"But are the VIBE people really representative of the
>Austrian Internet user community?" It's undeniable that
>it's harder to forge an user association than a group
>of registrar companies -- but that's not a valid excuse
>to exclude individual user interests, and I appreciate
>that it has been attempted here.

Well, this is the situation.

vibe.at has a track record of intelligent initiatives beyond provider 
bashing, and they are willing to take up community projects (read: do 
actual work).  Another 'user asscociation' would have been the UPC (cable 
Internet) user group which is mainly concerned with flaming their provider. 
Beyond that, there's silence.

The classical Austrian approach would have been to use the 'Sozialpartners' 
which tends to include unions, chamber of commerce, agricultural 
cooperatives and other groups of interest.

There is quite often a goal conflict between 'democratically legitimated' 
and 'expert' advise, and we have chosen the latter one. If anybody is 
unsure wether this is justified, just check the recent opinion of an 
European Parliament comittee on e-mail spam.

At this stage, where we're doing the step from zero to one, it is a largely 
utopic wish to have a democratically represented local Internet community 
anyway, and I am not sure if democratic legitimation is the higher goal 
than quality of advice and professionalism. The DNS is not a random policy 
issue like some agricultural subsidy, it is at the core of the Internet 
operation, and it would not be prudent to have clueless folk fiddle with 
it. I would assume that legitimation would over time come from the way on 
how issues are discussed and dealt with within the community. It is clear 
that there has to be a wider consultation process on issues of far-reaching 
consequences, and the consituencies of the groups from which the council 
members come are an important fan-out mechanism here.

There is a very good reason why telecom operators have a 'harm to the 
network' clause in their contracts, which allows them to unplug customers 
which do damage to the net. Expert advice is our form of 'harm to the 
network' protection.

- -Michael Haberler

ps: My point of view on .EU is quite similar.

> > Judge yourself where you find a 'co-regulatory approach' here.
>
>I admit that I took that phrase from the Heise.de article
>and found it a bit harsh (even though there is quite a
>difference between the Austrian model and the GAC -- the
>Austrian Domain Name Council decisions seem to be binding
>if not completely nonsensical).
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander

- ----
Michael Haberler                       [email-masked]
Mariahilferstrasse 126/27         Tel +43 1 5261679
A-1070 Vienna Austria           Fax +43 1 526167925

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:57:23 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] would you be a rocket scientist

Dear Kent,
your point is well taken. I may only conclude that you are not a
rocket scientist. A rocket scientist instinctive response would be
"let see how I can match that nasty stupid demand of the market".

Actually in this DNS issue, a part from releasing your fatherly grip
from the DNS control, what is concerning you is that the DNS
concept works better than you thought and supports things you
did not think of. IMHO the reason why is that the DNS is an
immemorial, proven and widely used concept ( http://kent.crispin )
while you tend to confuse it with BIND because of the way RFC
have described it.

Should you be a rocket scientist you would not hesitate in
considering a new release in the DNS/BIND RFC description
based upon different premises: the one which have proven to
work. May I suggest you something: stop thinking of the DNS
as a database and think of it as a progressive filter, a logic
router towards a pertinent information server. From wherever you
are. To help you in that thinking, reverse the DNS files. The
root in the last line. I am sure that if you give this some
considerations you will be surprised at the simplicity, the
power and the possibilities of the concept and of its current
of future implications.

The DNS is NOT hierarchical: it is multi-layered and of
progressive access. It is also a very convenient image of
the whole Internet and of our world: a good point to get your
own understanding and metaphors of the me/we model.

Actually you do not protect the DNS but the top/down and
bottom/up XIXth century models we lived with for decades,
what creates the AmerICANN most of its problem while
trying to organize a system which works under a different
model (the consensus is a only one of the idiosyncrasies
of the model)

Progressively - and among others through the Internet we
are entering a new world based on a me/- (me, you, we)
logic. Rather than to freeze the DNS, share in unlocking it!
It is a very simple, robust and yet powerful concept for the
future. Truly.

If you are a rocket scientist, just think all the applications
you may find in data retrieval systems from the DNS solution
used in the unlocked way of mine. Very appealing.

Jefsey

On 07:08 27/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
>On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> > doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.
>
>Yes.  That is the same presumption you would use to say "if heart
>surgeons think a procdure is dangerous, dump it".
>
> >  However, the
> > Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
> > or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> > users.
>
>Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if
>doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.  If we
>got practically universal agreement among doctors that a procedure was a
>bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.
>
>The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
>science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand the issues.  And,
>despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these lists really
>aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.
>
>(*) for those who may not be familiar with the idiom, "rocket science"
>is a slang phrase meaning "truly esoteric and specialized technical
>speciality".
>
>--
>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:26:56 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart  Lynn"

Dear Erica,
IMHO this is the reason why the IDNH meets problems for so long. But there 
are three problems:

1) the large organizations which creates most of the problems also are 
consumers.
2) the consumer protection is often an existing industry where the Internet 
is of no real interest yet.
3) the way the AmerICANN would most probably implement it would give it a 
new contested legitimacy in a field where it has no responsibility.

The IDNH approach seems to be a good starting root to address these 
problems. It puts the emphasis on the individual aspect essential to the 
"me/we" Internet and current social model. Any individual from a large 
corporation may participates (ex. Mr. Katho as an @large Director). Then it 
permits to put an emphasis on the individual aspect of many other problems 
(the nets are a consensus of individual participants to communicate in 
using he TCP/IP protocol set and the IP addressing scheme simplified by the 
DNS). The next step would probably be a Internet Participant SO including 
several dedicated interest groups: the participant as an individual, the 
participant as a Domain Name Holder, the groups of participants (families, 
associations, parties), the Consumer Representative Organizations, the 
Human Electronic Right organizations.

I am sure that several persons at BoD and STaff understand the danger of 
such an approach which would give representation to 99,5% of the individual 
participants and to the market. And the opportunities of power that 
twisting it might represent. This is why it was not the proper time to push 
for it at IDNO or in other fora until now. But for a couple of months this 
kind of consideration have partially developed, and it is probably time to 
talk about it. Thank you for rising the issue.

This is one of the topics which should be developed on the R&D sub-list I 
proposed yesterday.

Eventually, this is where everything will end. The nets governance is still 
too much technic/university oriented and must become market driven. Not 
easy for many to release their grip over it. We need to understand them: 
they do not only fear to lose power, but that in losing control they turn 
the networks lose. They do not trust the new generation ... Fighting them 
(as Kent) is of no use: they will go away anyway in a few years (30, 40? 
:-) ). If you want to save time - you have to compromise with them but on 
the roots of their problem, not in the DNS root. Or to show them you are 
good too and you are a member of the "net keepers" club.

Jefsey

On 06:15 27/07/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>erica wrote:
>
> > At the risk of drawing  flack and flame mail, my own view is that it would
> > be worth considering the creation of a Consumer/Registrant  Protection
> > Constituency -  rather than an individuals constituency.  While, in a sense
> > this is just a change of name, it also provides a much needed point of
> > focus - with the result that attention is shifted from the constituency
> > membership to to purpose of the constituency.  By emphasising the purpose,
> > it would be much easier to seek the funding required to support such a
> > constituency from potential donors (such as industry, government or other
> > public interest or consumer protection organisations)  and clarify
> > membership benefits.
>
>Erica,
>
>This idea has possibilities.  Methinks there are some merits to this
>proposition.  Perhaps we can develop this in more detail?   As there would 
>need
>to be a definition of the position of consumers/regitrants, which your 
>proposed
>CRPC would be advocating, would it not be wise to finally include a discussion
>on the definition of domain names in the new weltanschauung?
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:03:32 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

Kent,

Your lack of logic and loss of strength in communication concerns me, I 
hope everything is okay in your life.
- --------

Furthermore, doctors practice, while computer scientists and engineers 
design and build.

There can be no comparison drawn between Widgital and what happens in any 
given Emergency Room.  We guarantee results:  hospitals can not.

~k

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 07:59:49 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:55 AM
> 
> Friday, July 27, 2001, 12:41:53 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > ... and you are just parroting FUD.
> 
> No, he is stating facts, something you seem to be short of.
> 
> > I'm sorry, but I just can't let you get
> > away with this. New.Net didn't have any conflicting TLDs 
> until ICANN chose
> > to create new conflicting TLDs.
> 
> Wrong.  Go back and check with your ORSC croonies.  One of their big
> complaints with new.net when it started was the conflicting TLDs.

MDR happened in Nov00, NewNet hadn't announced existance yet. ICANN
conflicted, with BIZ, in Nov00. That was the signal that it was okay for
NewNet to also conflict. Why not? If ICANN can ignore the ORSC then NewNet
has no reason to acknowlege the ICANN. The facts are that NewNet didn't
conflict because they didn't exist at the time.

> You really need to check your facts and make sure you know the subject
> before commenting on the honesty of another member.

I was at MDR, you were not. I have other reasons to very firmly remember
when NewNet announced existence. The time-line says that I am correct. If
Kent isn't being dishonest then he's senile or at least, badly mistaken. He
makes a habit of making such "mistakes".

> Your message is sanctionable in my opinion and I've asked that you be
> censured by the monitors.

... and for posting such a threat on the GA list I am making my, first ever,
complaint about you.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 08:37:39 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 8:10 AM
> 
> Hello Roeland,
> 
> Friday, July 27, 2001, 7:59:49 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >> Wrong.  Go back and check with your ORSC croonies.  One of 
> their big
> >> complaints with new.net when it started was the conflicting TLDs.
> 
> > MDR happened in Nov00, NewNet hadn't announced existance yet. ICANN
> > conflicted, with BIZ, in Nov00. That was the signal that it 
> was okay for
> > NewNet to also conflict. Why not? If ICANN can ignore the 
> ORSC then NewNet
> > has no reason to acknowlege the ICANN. The facts are that 
> NewNet didn't
> > conflict because they didn't exist at the time.
> 
> New.net's TLDs were not in conflict with ICANN's TLDs, Roeland.  As I
> said, go back and check your facts.  You may have been physically
> present in MDR, but that doesn't confer on you any greater right to
> state non-facts as truth.

The last I heard, INFO was in the NewNet TLD list, at the time they went
live. In fact, I noted a number of TLDs that conflicted with the ICANN
proposed TLDs, at that time.

> I'm already banned.  My posts only go to ga-full, so there is nothing
> to complain about  :)

That explains a lot. However, it appears that you can still post to the
list.

But, it appears that my count was further off than I thought, yesterday.
Further, I just wasted two postings to you.<sigh>

g'nite ...
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #634
************************