Re: [ga] Text of Joe Sims 'willing to advocate' e-mail:

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

Jersey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Andy,
> Good point. Let try to be fair and say that Joe looks a professional doing
> extremely well an ill assigned job. I say that because from what we may
> observe, it appears there are two legal Internet:

  No there is only one internet, just multiple Root structures and registries,
that may have conflicting gTLD's which the ICANN BoD introduced
with .INFO and .BIZ.  As such, the ICANN BoD has knowingly
introduced a destabilizing situation that may confuse the stakeholders,
and create legal situations that were not necessary or desired.

>
>
> - the one resulting from the source code translated into real life terms
> and conditions or business contract by us all, the real providers/users.
> This first legal Internet aims at business development in stability.

  Business development is not the business of ICANN nor is it mandated
to engage in such activities.  Technical stability is however.

>
>
> - the one imagined by Joe Sims to build and defend an iCANN stable monopoly
> protecting a stable Internet management and protecting famous TM. As it is
> nor real nor "natural", Joe tries to translate into laws and fait accompli
> through iCANN agreements and policy.

  Indeed this does seem to be his political direction.  And one that seems
obvious to even the casual observer to be extraordinary.

>
>
> The divide between these two Internet is wider and wider every day.

  Not two internets, but two Root structure methods, and registries
with the same gTLD's.  Thus creating a collision problem with the
DNS that should not and would not have existed had the ICANN BoD
not created the problem with the edicted new TLD's, .INFO and .BIZ.

>
>
> If the US retain control, the Joe Sims' legal view of the internet may win
> as the issue will be under the jurisdiction of a single law he has been
> hand picked to relate with. This will lead to drastic limitations of the
> network capacities and to a permanent fight against reality (as in
> coopetitive roots, new.net, multi.bind, etc...).

  Indeed this is already starting to occur.  It will likely continue unless
the ICANN BoD starts to listen the the stakeholders.  Thus far, the
vast majority cannot even participate in the ICANN "Process" due
to arbitrary limitations that the ICANN BoD has used to delay
their voice and vote of what policies more than 80% of them
represent.

>
>
> If the Internet is acknowledged as international in a practical way (there
> are several ways of doing it), common sense will take over and the existing
> Joe Sims legal construction will be dismantled.

  Yes the internet stakeholders will eventually route around damage as has
been the tradition of the internet form day one.  However the high hopes
for ICANN will be mostly dashed should this become overly necessary
to do, and damage to stakeholders will be substantial in the mid term.
That seems to us [INEGroup] to be unsatisfactory and undesirable.
We can therefore only hope that the DOC/NTIA will recognize this
huge shortcoming and act accordingly.

> But, beware, we need the
> iCANN not to be replaced (otherwise next problem would be solved in
> changing it successor, etc..), so its legal internationalization will not
> be easy due to the anti-trust constraints during the transition period.

  There need not be a successor to ICANN.  There only needs to be
a requirement that is over sought by the DOC closely for the ICANN
BoD to fulfill it's commitments to the stakeholders as a whole.  Thus
far instead the ICANN BoD with Joe Sim's help, have decided
that they should determine policy before the stakeholders can
become directly involved and participate directly.

>
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 03:58 18/05/01, Andy Gardner said:
> >At 7:39 pm -0500 5/17/01, Bruce James wrote:
> > >Text of Joe Sims 'willing to advocate' e-mail:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ><http://www.icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=156&mode=thread&order=0>http:/
> > /www.icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=156&mode=thread&order=0
> > >
> >
> >Now, I'm getting confused.
> >
> >Does Joe Sims work for ICANN, or Verisign?
> >
> >--
> >Andrew P. Gardner
> >barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> >We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> >Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> >--
> >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
>
> --
> 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