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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Stuart,
Could we get real? To do that I will simple daily comon words.

-

One, you describe the things from the USG documents perspective instead of 
from a logical analysis. However very will drafted (and not that much 
respected by the iCANN), the USG documents are only dealing with the USG 
DNS application. As if you were explaining me how Words works and telling 
me that all the files are to be signed "Stuart Lynn".

-

Two, you are confused about the words "single authoritative". You want to 
be the single authoritative user on your  Words program: everyone does. 
This means that I cannot use your Words and you cannot use mine. This does 
not mean that you got the property of Words sources from Bill Gates. This 
is the usual misunderstanding of customers who believe they purchased the 
source when they got a usage right. I am the single authoritative boss on 
my machine: "single authoritative root" is a concept as obvious as a ship 
has a single authoritative captain. Only kids believe they command the 
world's fleet.

At TLD Level, from historical right (first come, first serve) the legacy 
TLDs (.com, .org, ..) are acknowledged by everyone as the TLDs run by the 
USG. No one is contesting that. As I do not sign my letters "Stuart Lynn". 
This means that when running the public DNS software no one will collide 
with these TLDs. From the same historical right (first come, first serve) 
many others have their own TLDs they use with the same public DNS software. 
Being realistic and polite they try to avoid collisions and when collisions 
happen by ignorance they try to resolve the conflict by mutual agreement. 
Among polite and decent grown people it works well. Now teenager iCANN 
wants to show it exists in creating collisions on purpose. This is childish 
and impolite. It is impolite for obvious reasons as if you started signing 
"Jefsey Morfin", it is childish as it gives all the others teenagers the 
idea that colliding the iCANN TLD is the next game in town. And we start 
seeing many around: New.net is only a nice well behaved one.

-

Three: at root level you get confused the most simple words. Nothing mythic 
or mystic about a root. It is only a TLD name-server map or directory. 
Anyone may publish a root showing where TLDs are managed. Usually when 
someone asks me a direction in the street, I try to respond at my best. My 
mother taught me that: this is courtesy she said. Most of the roots do the 
same as much as they can: who does not want to help his neigbhors? Now 
teenager iCANN wants also to be discourteous and not to tell people where 
are the zone servers if they do not pay him a TAF (TLD application fee in 
iCANNese - a marijuana joint in French). He even wants to play "petit chef" 
(e-napoleon) claiming he owns and runs the show. Even girls are not 
impressed: they know it is only because he is not grown enough and does not 
know anything outside his block.

-

Again, Stuart, get real, please. Milton has a fair pro-iCANN balanced 
approach which may be used as a basis for talks, mutual education, doctrine 
study, policy research, compromise or even consensus uncovering. We are not 
religious: we run businesses and social services. Many other things to do 
than this.

iCANN is a cosy secretariat for registering TLDs, allocating IP addresses 
and Port numbers. It is a convenient place to locate additional services 
like Registrar qualification, international gatherings organization, common 
ML management, international ccTLD relations and probably many other net 
keeping oriented nice functions helping everyone, keeping his Staff and BoD 
happy. iCANN is so few DNS oriented that it has not hired its technical 
manager yet and does not plan to do it in a near future if I look at its site.

Why to spoil all that? Just because of Mike Roberts' fancy to charge $ 
50.000 a $ 20 task? Everyone was happy with the iCANN before that. Let 
forget it.

-

Oh! yes: I forgot. Jon Postel needed a secretary to register his DNs and 
hired NanSi. He was also bored by collecting money so he asked NanSI to do 
it too. Then he hired others: a TLD is just a secretary mark (as on the 
letters) to know who from the pool entered it.

Now you want to hire some other secretaries and you miss Words licences. 
Also NanSi wants Jon's legacy... very usual for a favorite and she call on 
"authorities". I am surprised your are impressed: I hope your wife handles 
better her disputes with her grocer, or your got yourself a problem.

Yours are secretary pool management problems. The foreign secretaries want 
to form a second pool, Tuckows secretary starts being jealous, external 
secretaries are typing the letters yours expected to type, China secretary 
went on strike, your last policy statement made you the talk of the town 
instead of addressing the discontent, helpers deteriorate the situation. 
This is a very usual management case: no need to call on the Army, the USG 
and the rest of the World.

Get them together. Clean the situation. Tell them "there are no problems 
only challenges", tell them they are "the winning TLDs for the new 
millenium", blabla making them happy... etc.. and protect yourself against 
that  problem in externalizing your secretary pool.

-

There is a tale about the Frog which took itself for a Bull. It applies to 
NSI, let not apply it to the iCANN.
My suggestion at least.

Jefsey



On 18:17 15/06/01, M. Stuart Lynn said:
>It seems, Milton, that academe has arrived at a new standard since I left 
>two years ago. Anyone who agrees with you is "honest" and anyone who 
>disagrees is not ;-). Well, well!
>
>The basis for the statement that ICANN's policy is to support a single 
>authoritative root is extensively articulated in my document and the 
>references clearly cited. The White Paper, the Memorandum of 
>Understanding, and the Articles of Incorporation give clear indication of 
>ICANN's Policy. They are ICANN's charter documents. I suggest you read 
>them again. They are not very hard to understand and their statements with 
>regard to an authoritative single root and to competing roots are quite 
>clear. My statement on ICANN Policy is not unilateral -- it is 
>well-grounded in the community processes that led to the White Paper and 
>to the formation of ICANN.
>
>You may disagree. That's fine. It would make for a dull ICANN if everyone 
>agreed on everything.
>
>And I would encourage you to follow the appropriate processes if you would 
>like to see the current policy changed.
>
>With regards
>Stuart
>
>
>At 6:02 PM -0400 6/14/01, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>Stuart:
>>
>>I would request that you modify your statement to indicate that there
>>currently is NO stated consensus policy on the adoption of TLD
>>assignments by ICANN that are in use in alternate or competing roots.
>>
>>I can prove easily that there is no policy: ICANN has explicitly avoided
>>a conflict in the case of .WEB, and it has created a conflict in the case
>>of .BIZ. Both decisions were off-the-cuff ones made by the Board in
>>November. But there is no documented policy process that would explain
>>why they avoided conflict in one instance and not in another.
>>
>>The White Paper simply does not address the issue. Working Group C
>>did not address it. Nor did the Names Council resolution passing on
>>WGC's recommendation to create new TLDs.
>>
>>In your unilateral policy statement known as the "discussion draft,"
>>you made it clear that you do not like alternate roots. I would ask
>>you to look beyond that, as it is irrelevant to the question I am raising.
>>We must not confuse the question of whether there is a prior
>>policy with the question of WHAT the policy should be. We may agree
>>or disagree on the latter. But the only conclusion an honest person
>>cam come to about the former is that it is a policy question that has
>>not been carefully defined and explored.
>>
>>>>>  "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> 06/14/01 04:23PM >>>
>>Danny -- I am still receiving final editorial and other clarification
>>suggestions on my paper. I hope to have it complete in about a week
>>or so.
>>
>>Thanks for your interest.
>>
>>Stuart
>>
>>   At 1:48 PM -0400 6/14/01, Danny Younger wrote:
>>>Although the Names Council has decided, "that multiple roots are outside the
>>>scope of the ICANN DNSO", it is within the scope of the General Assembly to
>>  >consider changes in ICANN's domain name policies.
>>  >"The Supporting Organizations shall serve as advisory bodies to the Board,
>>  >with the primary responsibility for developing and recommending 
>> substantive
>>  >policies regarding those matters falling within their specific
>>  >responsibilities."
>>  >Our ICANN President has stated, "We already do have a policy, and we'd 
>> need
>>>to change that policy if we want to operate differently in the future."
>>>Director Abril comments, "Policy changes should go through policy process."
>>>The General Assembly is part of that process.  Should we desire to recommend
>>>any consensus-based changes, we need to begin with a full understanding of
>>>the current policy.
>>>We are however, at the moment hampered by the fact that we are still
>>>awaiting the revised version of our current policy draft.   Lynn:  "Will
>>>continue to take comments on single root paper and post a revised version.
>>>Board consensus."
>>>On behalf of the participants to this list, I will ask our President to post
>>>this revised version as soon as possible, so that the General assembly may
>>  >better be positioned to put forward policy recommendations in a timely
>>  >manner.
>>
>>--
>>
>>__________________
>>Stuart Lynn
>>President and CEO
>>ICANN
>>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>>Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>>Tel: 310-823-9358
>>Fax: 310-823-8649
>>Email: lynn@icann.org
>>--
>>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
>
>--
>
>__________________
>Stuart Lynn
>President and CEO
>ICANN
>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>Tel: 310-823-9358
>Fax: 310-823-8649
>Email: lynn@icann.org
>--
>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

--
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