Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #873
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, November 25 2001          Volume 01 : Number 873

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

Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 23:12:24 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...opinions were supposed to reflect a mostly nonexistent consensus..."

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=12&DocID=482

"My job was only to express the board's opinion as a whole. Unfortunately
it had very few opinions, because it didn't know very much, and its
opinions were supposed to reflect a mostly nonexistent consensus."
                      - Esther Dyson 

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

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.Register-BIZ.com
http://www.BIZ-Registry.com

- --
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: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 23:35:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

Sandy and all assembly members,

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> An aside: can people please try trimming messages? This had, top to bottom:
>         Jeff, coomenting on Marc
>         Marc, commenting on Chuck
>         Chuck, in a message that could have been a new thread but quoted me
>         me, replying to Roeland
> I'm the only one who'd done any trimming. The thing had three copies of the
> list footer at the bottom.

  This is done Sandy so that the thread can be followed more readily.

>
>
> > marc and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Yes I cought the oxymoran in Chucks comment (See below)
> > also...  Seems others have not however...
> >
> >   So I suppose the onely question reamaining is do we try to fix
> > ICANN or do we seek to replace it and start all over again?
>
> Do we have that choice? And who are the "we" in that sentence?

  The stakeholder and the internet community.

>
>
> What groups might have the power to dismantle, or otherwise fundamentally
> change ICANN?

  Good question.  In that ICANN is a creation by contract to the USG
through the DOC/NTIA it would have to be the DOC/NTIA that would
need to dismantle ICANN should that be the choice of preference.
Should the choice to "Change" ICANN, it would be the collective
efforts of the stakeholder and Internet community to make this happen
of course.

>
>
> Governments almost certainly could, but they seem generally to accept the
> compromises that have been reached. I can imagine (and hope to see)
> various national gov'ts backing the claims for independence of their
> ccTLD managers, but I don't expect gov'ts to want to start over. If
> they did, I'd worry about what might be on their agendas.

  Well as you know some governments have already started over.
China comes to mind...

>
>
> The Internet and telecommunications industries? They appear to be the
> main beneficiaries of the current structure. I don't see them as agents
> for change here, other than further power grabs like the current attempt
> to reduce At large director positions.
>
> The IETF and various implementers of the hardware and software that run
> the whole thing?

  I was not aware that the IETF ever implemented any hardware or
software.  They attempt to set standards for software development
of various types.  As a long time member of the IETF and active
participant in several standards Working Groups, presently and in the
past, this has not changed.

> Perhaps there's some remote hope there; technical changes
> might introduce other naming or indexing schemes that change the role of
> DNS and therefore of ICANN. I do not, however, expect any such event soon.

  Indeed this is already occurring both inside of the IETF and outside of
it. OpenBSD is one more notable example outside of the IETF.

>
>
> The users? Most of them seem neither to know much about these issues nor
> to be remarkably eager to learn.

  True for the most part.  But this is changing gradually.

>
>
> For any that do, there are language barriers. Even for native English
> speakers, some of the more technical parts of various discussions are
> likely incomprehensible.

  If you are not willing and eager to learn, yes various discussions are
likely to be difficult to comprehend.  However if not, than of course
this is not a big hill to climb for any reasonably intelligent individual
that is presently non-technical.

> That doesn't always matter -- sometimes the
> technical stuuf is irrelevant to the policy issues anyway -- but there
> are times when it does.

  Good point to a degree.  And here is where allot of the rub is.
Technical stuff is what makes the Internet work, and even is
central to it's existence.  Policy on the other hand is not.  Policy
still is very important as to how such technology should be used,
and even developed.

>
>
> Apart from language barriers, organising users into an effective force
> here is far from a simple problem.

  It is not simple.  But if it was would it be even need to be done?
Most likely not.  Easy answers or solutions are not always available.

>
>
> So my take on it is that there's no credible hope of replacing ICANN.
> We'll just have to fix it.

  Perhaps.  Is that what has been going on for about 1 1/2 years
without much if any success?  I think ICANN can be fixed,
but to do so will require getting users involved and allowed to
be involved.  The ICANN BOD and staff thus far has not
been willing the users/stakeholders to be involved.  In fact
many Domain name holders/Stakeholders have been thwarted
from involvement as well.

>
>
> Step one is getting nine openly elected board members seated.

  Very much agreed here!  >;)  Also allowing users the vote for all
of the At-Large Bod members and 9 not 6.

>
>
> > Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you. I am glad that one of the major stakeholders, if not THE major,
> > > recognizes that all this ICANN community talk is fake.
> > >
> > > --
> > > [email-masked]
> > >
> > > On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, at 10:14 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't disagree with any of the arguments about the failure of the
> > > > consensus system within ICANN but I attribute that to the fact that no valid
> > > > consensus development process has ever been put into place.  I also
> > > > recognize that such a task would be very challenging.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 23:40:58 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus development process

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development process has ever been
> put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling at a time when the
> Names Council has established a Task Force charged with arriving at a binding
> consensus policy regarding the issue of transfers.

  The problem is that the Task FOrce to which you reference was not an
open process for any and all stakeholders or interested parties to
openly participate in.  As such it's findings are tainted if not illegitimate.

>
>
> The last thing that any registrant wants is to have a disgruntled set of
> registrars challenge a consensus determination on this matter and further
> delay efforts at resolution of an ongoing problem.  If Chuck has legitimate
> concerns regarding the consensus development process, now would be the time
> to air those specific concerns so that we can move forward properly and
> finally put this issue behind us.
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:37:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus development process

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development process has ever been
> put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling at a time when the
> Names Council has established a Task Force charged with arriving at a binding
> consensus policy regarding the issue of transfers.

It's nice that you're troubled, but I don't think you being troubled is
going to change the last couple of years of history.

Chuck's right.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
       Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:44:37 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Starting From The Top -- The Supporting Organisations

Hi Sandy

Thanks for your interesting email.

I have just written privately to an influential figure in the ICANN world.
As the argument raised was quite valid, and my response was quite
considered, I should share it with you.  The initial response was in reply
to my previous email (indicated with > > ).

> > I'd like to see the ASO and PSO merged into a Technical Supporting
> > Organisation (TSO).  That would include all the telcos, ISPs and
> > other infrastructure.
>
> The PSO really ought to be replaced by a CTO (Chief Technical Officer) and
> its board seats eliminated.

That's the same thing really.  By merging the ASO and PSO, the influence of
the PSO becomes very minor.  It could easily be just a Technical Office
somewhere.

> The ASO has a real role - address allocation is a very arcane issue and
> one with significant economic and technical overtones.  But the ASO needs
> to be vastly expanded to permit meaningful participation by entities other
> than the regional IP address registries.

My point, which I think you have agreed with, is that technical issues
cannot be carried out in isolation.  I look at mailing lists like
[namedroppers] and think that, lurking behind the technical issues, are
hard nosed ISPs and telcos.  And very many other technical people.

I see the internet as one big piece of engineering infrastructure being used
by people (who don't necessarily have technical knowledge) for purposes like
business, games, downloading music, collecting money for charity,
communicating information with others, politics, etc. etc.

This dichotomy is so stark, in my mind, that it permeates the whole system.
It is demonstrated every time a "user" goes into an "isp" for service or
advice.  You have said:

> I don't like drawing lines about who ought to participate and who may not
> - my preference is for letting people self-label themselves and aggregate
> (or not) according to their self-perceived needs of the moment.  That's
> normal politics.

There are several problems with that proposition.  Imagine a school
teacher coming along and artificially dividing a big group of children into
two groups.  Lets call them "kids" and divide them into "boys" and "girls"
for convenience.  The teacher then invests a lot of authority and effort in
keeping these two group separated.  Let's call that "segregation".

After a while, perhaps many years, smarter kids will start to realise that
these divisions are arbitrary and unfair.  Then they will start to organise.
But first they have to start by educating people as to what is wrong with
the system.  And because they have been brought up that way, it is not an
easy task to convince people there is a better way.

Meanwhile the teacher is still keeping the two groups segregated making
communication harder.  Eventually after much effort, kids start getting the
idea that boys and girls can play together.  Then they need to develop
political structures to overcome the current system.  Unless they feel very
aggrieved, most kids will see it as too much trouble saying "oh well, it
works well as it is, let's just leave it alone".

And the present system wins by default.  Just look at apartheid in South
Africa.  In fact, I remember when (in November 1965)  Ian Smith declared UDI
in Rhodesia because he refused to allow "blacks" to share power with
"whites".

Of course, Zimbabwe is now ruled by a ruthless dictator and ex-terrorist,
Robert Mugabe.  Which brings up the other tool used by those in authority.
That changing the system will lead to anarchy, chaos and disorder.  This is
sometimes true.  But it is an unfair characterisation in most cases.

Another problem that comes to mind is that the developers of the new system
have to argue among themselves to prove their case.  Whatever one person
suggests, another person will destroy.  Neither of them say "Is your
proposal better than the CURRENT system?".  No, they say "Is your propoposal
as good as some notional, pie in the sky, idealistic system?".

If you don't think so, just look at the history of the individuals in IDNO
etc.  Meanwhile time passes and nothing gerts done.  Just look how hard
people like Martin Luther King and the whole civil rights movement had to
struggle.  Or how long Nelson Mandela spent in jail fighting apartheid.

There is a dumb story about a person in London.  Some tourist came up to
him and asked him how to get to a certain destination.  His answer was
"Well if I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".  That's my view
too.

That is also my deciding argument.  There is a need for change in the
ICANN structure.  It is better for that change to start from somewhere
else.  Not from where we are at the moment.  So let's change the deckchairs
and start again.

> Carving people up into pre-designated "stakeholder" groups creates the
> kind of unworkable situations we have today in ICANN.

No for two reasons.  One is that my proposal for two supporting
organisations (hardware and software, or physical and logical, or
engineering and business) so closely matches with the underlying
reality that you will see it in any science book you pick up.  Try one
on DNA, for example, or astronomy.

The other is that, with a bit of effort, we could make the structure
flexible.  Then the people involved could reorganise themselves.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:16:25 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 23:51:08 EST, Danny Younger wrote:

> Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development process
> has ever been put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling
> at a time when the Names Council has established a Task Force charged
> with arriving at a binding consensus policy regarding the issue of
transfers.

Hi Danny

I understand your point but assume you have not detected the illogicality
apparent in your above statement.  If the Names Council has established a
Task Force charged with "arriving at a binding consensus policy" then it can
be seen that one doesn't exist (at least regarding the issue of transfers).

However, I don't think that is what you meant to say.

Of course, Chuck's comments were qualified by the word "valid" and his
argument might simply be that the "consensus policy" lacks integrity.  If
so, I am sure that many on this list would agree with that proposition.

> The last thing that any registrant wants is to have a disgruntled set of
> registrars challenge a consensus determination on this matter and further
> delay efforts at resolution of an ongoing problem.

That sort of scenario has been the inevitable result of any proposal put
before the DNSO.  In fact it is exactly what has caught the various
proposals to develop an "individuals" constituency.  It will also cause
havoc with arguments in favour of a country code Supporting Organisation.

> If Chuck has legitimate concerns regarding the consensus development
> process, now would be the time to air those specific concerns so that
> we can move forward properly and finally put this issue behind us.

I think that was exactly what Chuck was alluding to.

In fact, I would question the validity of the entire Names Council "Task
Force" structure.  Could you confirm, for example, that there are seven task
forces and that you are the GA representative on three of them?

Please also note that I have been only been able to identify a Terms of
Reference
in three out of seven instances.  The Task Forces seem to be as follows:

NC New Structure Task Force = Joop Teernstra
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/
TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00012.html

 NC IDN International Domain Names = Danny Younger
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/

NC Dot Org Task Force = Marc Schneiders
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/

NC UDRP Review and Evaluation = Dan Steinberg
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/

NC Review Task Force = Roberto Gaetano
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/
TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00000.html

NC Whois Task Force = Danny Younger
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/

 NC Transfer Task Force = Danny Younger
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/
TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00000.doc

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:38:55 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Starting From The Top -- The Supporting Organisations

People seem to forget how much of this came about....it did not
happen over night...Prior to 1995...there were a few years of
history, which now people have totally forgotten...will all of the
rest of the years be forgotten ?

http://www.dot-biz.com/History/
1995 $50 per name/year .COM Charging Begins, .BIZ Proposed 
1996 ISOC Meets, .BIZ Registry #1 Starts, IAHC/WIPO Launched 
1997 NSF, ISOC, IANA, IAHC & CORE Delay the Entire Industry 
1998 eDNS .BIZ Making Progress, Postel Dies, ICANN Formed 
1999 The World Waits for the U.S. Government's DOC & ICANN 
2000  ICANN Selects .BIZ from 40 Beauty Pageant Contestants 
2001  .BIZ Added to IPv4 Legacy Root Servers, Registry #2 Started 
- ---

We are now faced with the coming of 2002, and the expansion of
the Next Generation Internet (NGI). In many respects, the Internet
will be starting over. The next round will hopefully be able to learn
from the past round. I think that most people have learned that delays
and distractions have dictated the course of history. The good news
is that people building the NGI, are not being distracted and are
making more progress than ever. The ISOC, IETF, and ICANN
Proof-of-Concept activities have taken a long time, and acheived
very little. Hopefully, the NGI will be able to achieve more in less
time, by starting at the "bottom", not the top.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.Register-BIZ.com
http://www.BIZ-Registry.com

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:58:28 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Errata -- Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:16:25 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03038.html
Subject: Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

> In fact, I would question the validity of the entire Names Council "Task
> Force" structure.  Could you confirm, for example, that there are seven
> task forces and that you are the GA representative on three of them?
>
> Please also note that I have been only been able to identify a Terms of
> Reference in three out of seven instances.  The Task Forces seem to be
> as follows:
>
> NC New Structure Task Force = Joop Teernstra
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/
> TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00012.html

<snip>

My apologies to David Farrar who, rather than Joop Teernstra, seems to be
the GA representative on the NC Structure Task Force.  I would appreciate
anyone's further clarification on these issues.

As far as Danny's point about "consensus" I would draw your attention to
Philip Sheppard's email posted on the NC Review Task Force as follows:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00000.html

This says, and I quote:

"Consensus.  Lead Milton
Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes
of NC consultation activities.  Milton had earlier thoughts on this
suggesting that we should drop the word consensus and just suggest certain
majority or super majority rules for DNSO groups.  This seems like a good
way
forward.  Milton - please advise progress or post to the virtual workroom."

I know Danny is aware of the developments since then.  However, as far as
I am aware, the result of this deliberation has not been put to a GA vote.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 18:07:38 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council Task Forces

Hi William

It is interesting to see how closely these seven task forces parallel the GA
special purpose mailing lists which you opposed so vigorously.  These are
less representative and do not, for the most part, have Terms of Reference.

Didn't anybody notice that they had been hoodwinked ?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

> NC New Structure Task Force = Joop Teernstra
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/
> TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00012.html
>
>  NC IDN International Domain Names = Danny Younger
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/
>
> NC Dot Org Task Force = Marc Schneiders
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/
>
> NC UDRP Review and Evaluation = Dan Steinberg
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/
>
> NC Review Task Force = Roberto Gaetano
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/
> TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00000.html
>
> NC Whois Task Force = Danny Younger
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/
>
>  NC Transfer Task Force = Danny Younger
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/
> TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00000.doc

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:14:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Starting From The Top -- The Supporting Organisations

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Sandy
>
> Thanks for your interesting email.
>
> I have just written privately to an influential figure in the ICANN world.
> As the argument raised was quite valid, and my response was quite
> considered, I should share it with you.  The initial response was in reply
> to my previous email (indicated with > > ).
>
> > > I'd like to see the ASO and PSO merged into a Technical Supporting
> > > Organisation (TSO).  That would include all the telcos, ISPs and
> > > other infrastructure.
> >
> > The PSO really ought to be replaced by a CTO (Chief Technical Officer) and
> > its board seats eliminated.
>
> That's the same thing really.  By merging the ASO and PSO, the influence of
> the PSO becomes very minor.  It could easily be just a Technical Office
> somewhere.

  The problem with this Patrick is that the ASO and the PSO are not
a good match for merging.  The ASO and the DNSO would be.
And than the PSO as you indicate would become very minor.

>
>
> > The ASO has a real role - address allocation is a very arcane issue and
> > one with significant economic and technical overtones.  But the ASO needs
> > to be vastly expanded to permit meaningful participation by entities other
> > than the regional IP address registries.
>
> My point, which I think you have agreed with, is that technical issues
> cannot be carried out in isolation.  I look at mailing lists like
> [namedroppers] and think that, lurking behind the technical issues, are
> hard nosed ISPs and telcos.  And very many other technical people.

  Yes there are some hard nosed ISP's and telco's as well as
many technical people.  However they are not the crux of the
ICANN problems from a structure standpoint.  Rather it is
the fact that the technical faction of the ICANN is not in
complete agreement with the BoD on a policy level as well
as several fractions within the technical folks.

>
>
> I see the internet as one big piece of engineering infrastructure being used
> by people (who don't necessarily have technical knowledge) for purposes like
> business, games, downloading music, collecting money for charity,
> communicating information with others, politics, etc. etc.

  Yes and this is too broad a view really.  The internet has several
independent parts that interface and different uses for those
are being developed on a regular basis.

>
>
> This dichotomy is so stark, in my mind, that it permeates the whole system.
> It is demonstrated every time a "user" goes into an "isp" for service or
> advice.  You have said:
>
> > I don't like drawing lines about who ought to participate and who may not
> > - my preference is for letting people self-label themselves and aggregate
> > (or not) according to their self-perceived needs of the moment.  That's
> > normal politics.
>
> There are several problems with that proposition.  Imagine a school
> teacher coming along and artificially dividing a big group of children into
> two groups.  Lets call them "kids" and divide them into "boys" and "girls"
> for convenience.  The teacher then invests a lot of authority and effort in
> keeping these two group separated.  Let's call that "segregation".
>
> After a while, perhaps many years, smarter kids will start to realise that
> these divisions are arbitrary and unfair.  Then they will start to organise.
> But first they have to start by educating people as to what is wrong with
> the system.  And because they have been brought up that way, it is not an
> easy task to convince people there is a better way.
>
> Meanwhile the teacher is still keeping the two groups segregated making
> communication harder.  Eventually after much effort, kids start getting the
> idea that boys and girls can play together.  Then they need to develop
> political structures to overcome the current system.  Unless they feel very
> aggrieved, most kids will see it as too much trouble saying "oh well, it
> works well as it is, let's just leave it alone".
>
> And the present system wins by default.  Just look at apartheid in South
> Africa.  In fact, I remember when (in November 1965)  Ian Smith declared UDI
> in Rhodesia because he refused to allow "blacks" to share power with
> "whites".
>
> Of course, Zimbabwe is now ruled by a ruthless dictator and ex-terrorist,
> Robert Mugabe.  Which brings up the other tool used by those in authority.
> That changing the system will lead to anarchy, chaos and disorder.  This is
> sometimes true.  But it is an unfair characterisation in most cases.
>
> Another problem that comes to mind is that the developers of the new system
> have to argue among themselves to prove their case.  Whatever one person
> suggests, another person will destroy.  Neither of them say "Is your
> proposal better than the CURRENT system?".  No, they say "Is your propoposal
> as good as some notional, pie in the sky, idealistic system?".
>
> If you don't think so, just look at the history of the individuals in IDNO
> etc.  Meanwhile time passes and nothing gerts done.  Just look how hard
> people like Martin Luther King and the whole civil rights movement had to
> struggle.  Or how long Nelson Mandela spent in jail fighting apartheid.
>
> There is a dumb story about a person in London.  Some tourist came up to
> him and asked him how to get to a certain destination.  His answer was
> "Well if I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".  That's my view
> too.
>
> That is also my deciding argument.  There is a need for change in the
> ICANN structure.  It is better for that change to start from somewhere
> else.  Not from where we are at the moment.  So let's change the deckchairs
> and start again.

  ICANN will eventually become irrelevant unless or until as a organization
it decides to change itself.  Timing is also important here too.  The old IANA
also faced this same crossroads several years ago.  And it also became
irrelevant by in large as a result of failing to make transitions that the
Internet community were making despite the IANA's policies.  ICANN
can avoid this yet, but that window of opportunity is fairly narrow now
and narrowing quickly.

>
>
> > Carving people up into pre-designated "stakeholder" groups creates the
> > kind of unworkable situations we have today in ICANN.
>
> No for two reasons.  One is that my proposal for two supporting
> organisations (hardware and software, or physical and logical, or
> engineering and business) so closely matches with the underlying
> reality that you will see it in any science book you pick up.  Try one
> on DNA, for example, or astronomy.
>
> The other is that, with a bit of effort, we could make the structure
> flexible.  Then the people involved could reorganise themselves.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:10:39 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Hi GA,
	Referring to the case of Unplugging of Somalia's Internet.

	For the record only: I would like to indicate that although I am in support
of unplugging all terrorists related sites and sites registered by
terorrists and its related parties, I am concern that the action will become
a precedence for the future in that, a nation can/will action the same
against other nations' internet presence due to political differences. Such
activities will result in that the control of the Internet (which controls a
part of the future social economy structure) being used as a politcal tool.

regards,
- - Joseph
=================

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:10:36 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] How to use the experimental IPv6-only DNS root and gTLD server 

How to use the experimental IPv6-only DNS root and gTLD server 

http://www.viagenie.com/en/ipv6/dnsrs/utilisation.shtml

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 10:08:20 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, at 23:01 [=GMT-0500], Sandy Harris wrote:

[Jeff Williams wrote]
> >   So I suppose the onely question reamaining is do we try to fix
> > ICANN or do we seek to replace it and start all over again?

> What groups might have the power to dismantle, or otherwise fundamentally
> change ICANN?

Any group of 4 or 5 big ISPs that change their named.root and start
selling domains in .kids, .family, .low, .top, etc.

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 10:25:54 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus development process

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, at 23:51 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:

> Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development process has ever been
> put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling at a time [...]

I find this comment troubling in itself. It shows how sick ICANN is. That
is more important than all the transfers between registrars about which
you worry.

Why don't we try to take the comment seriously? And do something about it.
The "ICANN community" I mean.

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:52:35 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus development process

|> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 1:26 AM
|> 
|> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, at 23:51 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:
|> 
|> > Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development 
|> process has ever been
|> > put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling 
|> at a time [...]
|> 
|> I find this comment troubling in itself. It shows how sick 
|> ICANN is. That
|> is more important than all the transfers between registrars 
|> about which
|> you worry.

I agree.

|> Why don't we try to take the comment seriously? And do 
|> something about it.
|> The "ICANN community" I mean.

Because we can't? It is clear to me now that, with the current BoD, the
ICANN cannot be fixed. Rather, that it should be "fixed" instead. Calling an
act of tyranny a consensus, in a body that is consensus based, is probably
more accurately called an act of corruption. That corruption i sufficiently
infused thorughout the ICANN that it can't effectivly be extracted. The
cancer has eaten too deep. Actually, the poor thing was born with it.
- --
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 #873
************************