There is an alternative to ICANN - The TLDA (was Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn)

["John Palmer" <jp@adns.net>]

> Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:<snip>
> >
> > > Yes I take this a little out of context but I do not like the
> > > fundamental position that any system would require only one right
answer
> > > to the same question.
> >
> > That's been one of the basic ideas all along. Way back in 1987, RFC 1024
> > "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES" states the design goal for the
> > DNS system, and the very first one was:
> >
> > " The primary goal is a consistent name space ...
> >
> > This is fundamental.

[THE FOLLOWING IS THE POSTERS OPINION ONLY AND SHOULD NOT
 BE TAKEN TO REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE TLDA]

I agree - but ICANN has used this as an excuse to set themselves up as a
quasi-governement agency which aspires to be answerable to no one.
"Consistent"
means a stable root network and collision avoidance. Its amazing how ICANN
has violated the primary rule of stability by introducing two collisions:
BIZ and
INFO

ICANN as it is constituted today is a shill for a few special interests
(IP/WIPO and
several organizations that will benefit directly from being awarded TLDs).

ICANN has done everything it can to stall and thwart free and open
elections of its officers.

ICANN is supposed to be a technical coordinating body, not a policy  making
body.

ICANN claims to be a monopoly buster. Yes, they did effectivly end the NSOL
monopoly on .COM/NET/ORG, but they created a new monopoly one level about
that - a monopoly at the root level that benefits their own board members
only.

In this monopoly, they impose incorrect restrictions on what TLDs can be
listed
in the root. They use this "power" to enrich themselves and serve a narrow
set of special interests (ie WIPO et al) at the expense of the rest of the
community. They have enabled the theft of SLDs by rich and powerful IP
interests (since when was BARCELONA a trademark?) and the theft
of business products (BIZ, INFO) from their legitimate holders.

The Top Level Domain Association has as one of its goals, the promotion of
a stable namespace. The differences between ICANN and TLDA are striking:

1. TLDA will NOT impose business models. In determining what is and is not
a valid TLD claim, TLDA will look at first-come, first serve as a basis, but
also operational requirements. Any TLD must have at least two servers
answering
authoritativly and must have at least three SLDs in existence to show that
the holder is capable of delegating SLDs. Thats about it - and thats all
that it
should be. Purely technical requirements. ICANN demands payment for
inclusion
of SLDs into the root. ICANN forces all of its TLD holders
and registries/registrars to force the Theft Clause (the UDRP) on SLD
holders.

2. TLDA is a democratic body. ALL officer positions are open for election by
TLDA members (exception: a few of the interim board members will be
retained for a few months to a year after the current election). TLDA is
currently holding
nominations for its officers and committees with the first election
scheduled for July 27 - 29. ICANN has thwarted elections of its officers
by the internet stakeholders. The most recent scam was the failure to
allocate
money for elections.

3. The TLDA will publish a RECOMMENDED list of TLDs, their servers
and their holders. The TLDA is not vying to become a quasi-government
agency.
TLDA will make recommendations only. ISPs and other can take them or
leave them. ICANN, with the help of the USG is attempting to force policy
on people by using the rubber stamp of the DOC as an enforcement club.

If you are a TLD holder, please visit http://www.tlda.org and join us. You
can
participate in an organization that will balance out the undemocratic
monopoly
of ICANN.

[THE PREVIOUS IS THE POSTERS OPINION ONLY AND SHOULD NOT
 BE TAKEN TO REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE TLDA]

--
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