Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

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

Mr. Lovell,

And I am sure I will get no argument from any quarter!

You have again tooled your words in such a way to be admired by all and envied by
many.

You have spoken well and true, it is akin to the truly Buddhist and Christian
understandings of servant.  As I am preparing an outline for an upcoming IT
convention I reflected on this same thought.  Our Secretary of States' son Michael
who holds some important position has vowed not to let technology become the
master but the tool for the benefit of all of us.  I have just learned, through
many ears and tongues so as not to be verifiable, that within a very rural area of
Vietnam a young son was just saved by what a pharmacist had learned thorough the
Internet.  The Internet is truly the High Servant and us common users only the
lowly masters.

As has been the case throughout all time; let us do good in spite of ourselves and
not because of ourselves.

Sincerely,
Eric

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.  However, the
> Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
> or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> users.  It is those users who have the right and obligation to decide
> what kind of Internet that will be, the single, "authoritative" (I just
> love that audacious presumption!) root or multiple roots.
>
> And most of my questions were not answered at all.
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > Bill Lovell wrote:
> > >
> > >Some relevant questions concerning this letter:
> > >
> > >On what basis is ICANN claiming "consensus?"
> > >
> > >What is the basis for the statement "the concept
> > >of multiple roots clearly leads to the potential for
> > >conflicting top level domains and consequent
> > >Internet instability," and if that is true, why is
> > >it establishing a .biz TLD, when there already is
> > >one of those, which could bring about the
> > >very collision it decries?
> >
> > The basis for this statement is the position of the IETF, as summarised by
> > the IAB.
> > This item has also been debated at the PSO General Assembly some 10 days
> > ago, and there has not been one single voice in favour of multiple roots.
> > Incidentally, I have been one among others who spoke in favour of
> > IAB/ICANN's position, but of course made it clear that I was speaking only
> > as "a member of the DNSO/GA".
> >
> > I don't want to underestimate the importance of the different political POVs
> > on the multiple roots, but since this issue has negligible support (if any
> > at all) in the Protocol community, and specifically at the IETF, ICANN
> > should not do anything else than dismiss it.
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> --
> Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
> possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
> Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
> mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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

--
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