Re: [ga] Net Keepers

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

Jefsey and all remaining assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Roberto,
> You are certainly right. But beyond a change in policy we have witnessed
> the formalization of a change in the nature of the iCANN, which has now
> established its new target: to rule the Internet in using a rigid non
> innovative TLD contract model (VeriSign, bilateral/trilateral ccTLDs,
> gTLDs), targeting a full governorship over the SLDs themselves (cf. .biz,
> .org / UDRP).

  Yes.  And this NEW POLICY is in stark disagreement with the principals
of the White Paper and most especially the MoU.

>
>
> I certainly understand the logic. But on several examples like the
> trilateral contracts, that logic turns being irrealist. It is also in
> opposition with the White Paper and the whole Internet story, nature and
> practice.

  Exactly.

>
>
> This de facto monopolistic private ownership of the Internet by a few
> individuals results from a subtle competition established between
> GAC/USG  (for an international legitimacy), the various ccTLDs ('divide to
> reign' and to keep control of the Internet local communities) and
> VRSN/gTLDs for the financial and technical DNS aspects. Some other
> additional controversial equilibriums like DNSO vs @large, ... US Staff vs
> multinational stakeholders... add some pieces to the chessplate.

  Good points here.  However with organizations like New.Net showing
promise, this ICANN BoD is not going to remain the only or the biggest
player on the planet.

>
>
> On 18:01 03/04/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
> >I still think that to be able to run (and now without time constraints
> >and/or other future limitations) the Registry and the Registrar for the
> >major generic TLD *is* giving to VeriSign unfair competitive edge.
> >As I said, the matter may now be moot, but IMHO we have just witnessed the
> >formalization of a change in policy by ICANN.
>
> This situation is not acceptable to many and IMHO will lead to an
> international anti-trust action we already see the seeds in the USA, in
> Europe and in Far-East at top political level. This action will create
> development delays and major instabilities. The only solution we have left
> to develop a stable approach is to use the "low interest" tools (in
> Vint/Staff's opinion): DNSO, DNSO/GA, @large, DNS software analysis, TLDA,
> ML, etc...
>
> This happens while the Chair of the DNSO/GA is at its weakest with only now
> three candidates.

  Three candidates is fine.  More would be better, but certainly not necessary.

>
>
> I therefore suggest this: to gather an informal working group of seasoned
> people and ready to invest corporations, wanting genuinely to work for the
> stability and the development of a deregulated and financially distributed
> Internet. Each of them explaining his intellectual, technical, financial,
> etc... interest in an Internet by the users for the users (hence the
> subject "the net keepers"). They will focus on a stable vision of the
> Internet progressively embodied through a pragmatic rewriting of the RFC
> 1591. This RFC should be based upon experience and become the international
> White Paper of the Internet users. The positions taken will have to be
> explained and documented to Govs, corporations, user associations,etc... It
> should also help/catalyze the development of one or several commercial/non
> profit DNS galaxies to complement the VeriSign Galaxy. These are the early
> days of Airbus vs Boeing.
>
> As a construed action it would call for a lot of money. As a coordination
> spirit it does not: the idea is only to help our political and
> commercial  synergies. I am sure it can achieve much. Actualy being cheap,
> stable, reliable and light is exactly what we want to achieve. Being it in
> our own relations should be a strength?
>
> People interested in joining/discussing the concept please respond on the
> DNSO/GA or privately (not to inform the iCANN of the whole picture
> immediately). I will help as a secretariat should the idea take off.

  The secretariat of the DNSO is not interested in additional stakeholders
joining in, in fact this has been greatly discouraged on mass, and was
demonstrated
back last july.  Participants left the DNSO GA in droves as a result of this
manipulation.

>
>
> I want to underline that in my mind this is NOT a competition with any
> existing effort or a diversion, but to the contrary a way to help
> developing a mutual and focussed assistance among the "loyal opposition"
> now a "determined opposition". Just two opposite examples: the established
> DNSO/GA may now be the key place after the seemingly hi-jacking of the
> @large. The new born TLDA may be of precious help if it enlarges its
> concerns to all the TLD managers interests. And there are many others.
>
> Again nothing formal. Just: "hi! I am here, I want to be counted in that
> talk" or "we should ask xxxx".
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> 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