Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)

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

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 11:45 29/03/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >This is why there is no other solution than:
> >-  iCANN incorporating as the association of the national NICs (ccTLD, IP
> >addressing, local/private TLD managing facilities, internet community
> >services, etc...) and gTLDs at a lower degree.
> >- that association requesting the UN NGO status.
>
> heaven help us.
> The alternative to a private-sector ICANN is the ITU, not a new UN body.

  The ITU is not the only alternative, Harald.  Future more you know that it
isn't.

>
>
> >I note that the USG legitimacy (as per Hans Klein at least) over the
> >Internet comes from two points:
> >-  the IP addressing scheme the international and social complexity and
> >technical correlations of which are such that it is definitly an issue for
> >the ITU/T
> >-  a missing (?) loop in the current BIND version that anyone may add, so
> >the root may be loaded as several root-file subsets. Once these may 10
> >lines of code aree added the unicity of the root is preserved but the
> >multiplicity of its origines is built-in. The role of the iCANN is then to
> >make sure (according to its equal treatment to all charter) that all the
> >subsets are presented in a proper format and there is no TLD naming
> >conflicts. All the current work with UDRP, Registrars and new TLD is QA by
> >a proheminent body: proposing solutions, control, label for the market to
> >better chose and be served.
>
> this is just plain silly. What does one do when those sources conflict?

  The ICANN BoD created the possibility of conflicting TLD's, not New.Net.
The ICANN BoD did so in Marina Del Rey.  New.Net didn't exist
than.  It does not however.  RFC1591 provided a course by which new
TLD's could be introduced.  The ICANN BoD rejected RFC1591 for
reason or reasons unknown.  Hence the free market came into play
more forcibly al la New.Net.  You will see more New.Nets in the future,
more than likely unless or until the ICANN BoD has a process that
is open, fair, and in the best approved interest of the stakeholder community.
The process that was executed in Marina Del Rey is not such a process.

>
> as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a governing
> body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the improvement?

  New.Net has proven no such thing.  But the ICANN BoD has...
(See comments above and archives of the Marina Del Rey ICANn Meeting)

>
>
> btw, it is rather obvious that you have not seen the configuration files of
> BIND; it does not work the way you think it does.

  In it's current form, no it doesn't, your right.  But Bind 8.2 can with
about a 36 line modification.  This much has been proven and tested...

>
>
> >In a nutshell, iCANN is not to "protect" us, but to serve us.
>
> on that point, we agree.

  Thank god!

>
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 118k 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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