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

["JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>]

> 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.

Even then, their power would come from contracts and agreements 
only, not law.  In addition, ICANN has no control over the root and 
there is the probability that DoC will not hand over control of the 
root or com/net/org to anyone.

A root can be developed by anyone, anywhere in the world and 
users can choose to adopt or point to any other computer in the 
world.  When those who perceive they have the "power" to control 
the Internet by crushing innovation and indivdual choice realize the 
nature of this communications medium, we might just reach a point 
where they also realize that cooperation works best.  Big Brother is 
usually rejected by most of the world out of hand.

ICANN could have gone a long way in fostering an atmosphere of 
cooperation.  Instead they have tried to play Big Brother - control 
by a select segment of commercial interests, and conquer.  It has 
not worked.

> 
> >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? 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?
> 
> 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.

BIND is not the only game in town either.  Even if what you suggest 
were possible or probable, there would be a shift to another open 
source code to allow Unix users choice for configuration.  There are 
several available. 

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

> 
> --
> 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-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
> 


--
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