ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: [ga-roots] MOTION - Consensus-Based Policy on Alt Roots

  • To: General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@dnso.org>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] MOTION - Consensus-Based Policy on Alt Roots
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
  • Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:14:57 -0700
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105090259200.95774-100000@pan.bijt.net><05a501c0d835$a83b51a0$8ce9fea9@hamza> <2499845888.20010508201332@userfriendly.com> <05ea01c0d838$28d9bb60$8ce9fea9@hamza>
  • Sender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org

Patrick and all,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi William
>
> > There is no way anyone could claim that such a proposal has any kind
> > of consensus, nor that RFC1591 supports the alt.root claim.
> >
> > Any effort to try and advance this as a consensus policy would be
> > illegitimate.
>
> Perhaps you could re-read the proposal.  It is AGAINST alt roots.  I cannot
> see how ICANN should not wish to foster compliance !!!!!!

  Compliance with what is the real question though Patrick. 
"Competitive
Roots" and "Alt Roots" exist.  As such the stability of the DNS and the
Internet as a whole is at stake here.  RFC1591 supports first come
first serve.  dotBIZ (ICANN's Version) is not first.  Hence, the ICANN
BoD is promoting instability if they wish to not cooperate with existing
"Competitive Roots" or "Alt Roots".

>
>
> With your excellent writing skills, could you suggest how it could be
> improved.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> > Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 8:10:52 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > > As the role of the DNSO General Assembly is to provide consensus-based
> > > policy input to ICANN, I have asked everybody that they think that
> > > consensus-based policy should be?  I therefore move the following policy
> > > should be adopted by ICANN:
> >
> > > "ICANN adopts compliance with the relevant DNS standards as a general
> > > principle.  It recognises that there is a likelihood of collision and/or
> > > confusion when root operators do not comply with RFC 1591 which suggests
> > > that there should be a "unique root zone*.  ICANN will therefore adopt
> > > methods and measures to foster co-operation and compliance within the
> > > industry."
> >
> > > Any seconders?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>