Re: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

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

Jefsey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 12:00 15/06/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > >    We can only hope that new.net isn't the first such case.
> >It hasn't been.  Where would you get this idea?  New.net is
> >really a late comer...
>
> and is not by far not the most important and the most technically developed
> and the most successfull to be to come....

  Very true.  In fact, New.net is not the "Best of Bread" of Competitive
and Inclusive Root and registry structures, not to mention neither is
SRS or RRp respective to registration systems and Registry DB's
either.  Some existing now, although not well funded yet, are far
better, and more stable that what New.Net has offered thus far.
New.net has just done a much better job of marketing and
gathering alliances than other existing Competitive and Inclusive
Root and registry structures.

  Yes, and better are yet to come.  Some have been very quiet
waiting for the proper time to announce and offer their
services.  These will be coming soon I would imagine...
The challenge to the so far ICANN closed Root structure
philosophy has yet to really begin.  But as long as the
ICANN BoD (Stewart Lynn and company) and the NC
keep their collective heads in the sand, they will again be
unprepared and unpleasantly surprised.  That to us
seems to be a negative and unproductive long term strategy
to take.


>
>
> >Next is "Competitive and Inclusive" IP registries....
>
> This is the real issue.

  Yes it is.  But I only mention it in passing really as fair warning....

>
>
> The real problem is IP addressing. The social/industry/politcal importance
> of the problem is such that the current DNS blundering by the iCANN makes
> unconceivable it will not be taken over by the ITU/T.

  I am sure the ITU would be more than happy to take over this
function in conjunction with the IETF for closed guidance.
This would be a political and economical mistake of
course.  But it is possible.

>
>
> The easiest way will be the ITU/T to devise the Universal Numeric Adressing
> Plan to be offered for consistency to the different network and application
> systems, including the Internet (as for the ccTLD two letters code,
> telephone number, raido and TV frequencie etc...).

  Yes, this would seem to be the direction that would be logical.

>
>
> The current IPv4 will then interface and be progresively replaced by the UNAP.
>
> There could have been a lot of positive and exciting things for the iCANN
> to do would have them not asked $ 50.000 for a $ 20 task...

  Well economics of scale doesn't seem to be and ICANN BoD
strong suit...

>
>
> 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