[ga-full] Re: [IFWP] Comments@icann.org

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Mark and all,

Mark Measday wrote:

> In rereading some of the comments on the icann.org list, I was struck by
> the absence of some 50% of the messages. It may be that these were all
> from Jeff, it may be that they were unretrieved by the server for some
> technical reason, it may be that they have been censored for good or bad
> reasons. At least their absence meant that I did not have to read them.

  Well you did not have to read them any way, as one can be selective
from the archives as one chooses, Mark.  But no, the ICANN comments
list has been poorly managed for some time now despite many people
making note of posts that are not received or archived, as required.

>
>
> However, their absence, and the lacuna in information that allows one to
> attack ICANN because of their absence shows interestingly that ICANN,
> chronically underfunded and short-staffed, will not be able to establish
> full legitimacy (whatever that is) until it has the resources necessary
> to resist attacks from governments, individual activists and opponents,
> and until it also functions in the neutral way of international
> administrations, neither proposing nor disposing but mediating,
> educating and generally doing nothing that can be attacked (itself a
> subject of attack, but nothing is perfect).
>
> Forced as I am to concentrate on Mr Sondow's able demolition of
> purposive action by such as Mr Sims and the DOC, who did what they
> could, and his discovery of the genius of David Maher, one wonders how
> to size the problem even more now. Your conference is opened by prime
> ministers, one catches the able Mr Blair teaching a youngster how to
> route through altavista on tv, whilst NSI is sold to Verisign for
> comparatively small change.

  $21b for NSI is hardly small change.  I am a bit surprised, but not overly

so.  However as a NSI stock holder, I am pleased as punch at the offer
price.  >;)

> The domain and address have become prime
> signifiers, but how big are domain name and addressing problems? Big
> enough to compete for airtime with the disasters and pleasures of
> primetime tv? What would be the costs of an internet strike amongst
> those manning the root servers? Would the strike be broken in the
> (inter)national interest?

  New Root Servers can be set up rather easily, as has already been
demonstrated.  Shared Root System, is that future (Near term?) for
the DNS anyway, whether or not ICANN or the IP interests believe it
to be so or not.

>
>
> Unreal problems whilst the internet community is there to protect us
> with its ideal of equal free access, service to the community and
> maintenance of stability. But what will happen as the interest groups
> within ICANN polarise further, as commercial forces reach deeper down
> into the organisation, splitting the ideal from the real? No businessman
> (I have no licence to speak for IBM here) is going to be happy with the
> underpinnings of his work run by a volunteer network of idealists.

  Agreed.  Idealists pursuit can only play a role, but not effect control
over time, even a short time.  However it is obvious that commercial
interests can and will decide to one extent or another what the landscape
or the DNS will be.  If there is a desire or a perceived large enough
financial interests for multiple root structures, then they will appear
or be deployed.

> As
> such ICANN has a duty to see that the necessary internet mappings, qua
> the NSI model are not only supported by government at a fully strategic
> level, but also appropriately capitalised and remunerated. Some of this
> is in place, but not all.

  Unfortunately ICANN does not have or has not sufficiently shown that
it can effect good Internet Mappings to date.  The IANA of old, also
demonstrated this some 5+ years ago.

>
>
> ICANN will presumably negotiate itself a place in the sun somewhere
> between the chaotically free 'route around damage' model and the
> fully-fledged treaty organisation model where nothing can really happen.

  Both models will effectively take their place.  Not one of the other.

>
> Institutions are designed to absorb the shock of technical change and
> redistribute it softly. ICANN must acquire larger and more powerful
> resources in order to do so. However, it is unlikely that it will be
> allowed to retreat to the highly technical cooperative resource model.

  Agreed.

>
>
> MM

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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