[ga] Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to responseto response)

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Gentlemen,

I am not referring to anyone or any words here but simply use this as the spring
board.  The otherside is not thinking in your static lines.  They have million
dollar budgets to plan and manipulate and control.
While we speak of "no law or regulation which requires an ISP to point to a
certain......"  They are saying "how can we require all ISPs to point to us".
In this case the answer is plain but dressed as a sheep while it stalks our
young.  Watch the APNIC movements and review the proposed new RIR agreements. Oh
yes, these are specifically designed to get by you and then restrict who RIRs do
business with, as in not with any ISPs that lead to fragmentation, ie any root
but ours.

Somehow we must learn from the past and begin to counter these types of moves.
You see, as a techie looks at a situation and knows that he must come up with a
plan that is different from the rule he now follows, policy strategists have
been manipulating since for sure during King Tutts time.  You guys are being
great analysts but now you must move on to the strategist arena.

Let me guess; some organ of versign - let us say an Irish company called
Affilias is going to or has and is making overtures to just go ahead and
purchase the real dotBIZ.  Now that solves the immediate problem and now all
agreements can openly state that to do business the ISPs, registrars
andregistries must be ICANN compliant.  Now we use the term RIR compliant. Uh oh
they just got all of the ccTLDs also - while we argued if there would be
collisions.

There is no way ICANN passed .BIZ so that there would be collisions, they passed
it so they could force a confrontation which will allow them to establish only
Verisign controlled business. Verisign and ICANN control the RIRs, so far EU is
waiving their saber rather well but they need support and a redrafting of the
RIR agreements to get this blocked.

Many will call this noise, and it is that failure to pay attention to matters
that really will effect the internet, that has gotten us into the trouble we are
in.

Sincerely,

ps. this is not just a root topic, although some would like it quarantined
there.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 02:01 29.05.2001 -0700, NameCritic wrote:
> >Continuing on the same thing here. You wrote "ICANN has proposed one way:
> >strict regulation of entries into a single
> > > root, no conflicts allowed" Again that reflects the thinking that ICANN
> >hasn't allowed conflicts when they have introduced existing TLDs. Maybe you
> >mean that to say, no conflicts unless ICANN creates them.
>
> I meant to say "no conflict among the names recognized by ICANN".
>
> As Roeland has pointed out, there is no law against resolving DNS names any
> way you want to; "regulation" is probably not the best word to use above,
> since I was thinking of regulation of names entered into ICANN's root only.
>

--
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