<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
Aren't we really at a point now where Domain Names are really just a social and
not a technical factor. And haven't we really always really been there. How
long ago was 2001 space odessy and a computer that got a domain name, what was it
Hal? Aren't we always trying to bring things and animals into our social
conscience. People name parts of their body, their pets, their cars. (the world
famous restaurant chain Hooters is ridiculously on point, Herbie the VW bug is
another)
So when we make policy regarding Domain Names let us be honest, all we are making
is social policy and that is governance. So now ICANN either recognizes it
engages in social political governance or it continues to be idiotic.
Eric
Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Dear Michael,
> You right about IP function - IPv6 is the most complex thing we have to
> deal with.
>
> Regarding its relations with the DNS I think we should also strangle once
> for all the idea that the DNS is a way to provide an human readable form of
> the IP address. This prevents many from understanding many things and has
> lead to the underlying ida that the DN represented something valuable by
> its own.
>
> The IP address only helps with the access to the site. DNS and IP are now
> parallel addressing plans
> (IP using figures and DNS using the international naming scheme we devised
> in 1978). Knowing the site IP address does not necessarily permit to access
> a site. You may often need the CNAME.
>
> The Internet governance has youth problems from the ICANN attempt at
> embodying alone, and in using old stiff structures.
>
> - there need to be multiple governance centers for Internet governance
> stability
> - they need to cooperate to gain the Internet Participant's trust, for
> usage stability
> - they need to compete for better service and innovation
> - they need to be complementary in term of type of services, cultures,
> languages
>
> We are happy that ccTLDs and VeriSIgn keep close with the ICANN. We should
> work for other emerging governance centers - like China, Europe, Value
> Added Roots and probably some others - keep close instead of rebuking
> them. We should also make sure that the ICANN structure does yeld to
> additional divides.
>
> Let abandon the hierarchical outdated visions. They are just downgrades of
> reality. Who wants don graded solutions?
>
> 1. constituencies are to represent stake holders specialized concerns. Each
> with its appropriate structure. Including representative organizations,
> concerned operations and dedicated individuals. Let accept that they are
> the basic ICANN components if you do not want to say Members because of
> local legal oddities. And let not object to them sharing into other
> governance centers. Value Added Roots definitely need to dialog with the
> IPC about TLD squatting and TM protection on business oiented TLDs. Or
> Registrars about the new forms of Ownership or Membership Naming by some TLDs.
>
> Let help the emergence of the missing constituencies: Registrants,
> Individual Users, DNS developers, IP users, SMEs, etc...
>
> 2. SOs with their Council and their GA seem to be appropriate WG for the
> Constituencies to join forces on an as needed basis. Let ccTLDs for example
> share into ASO, in the DNSO as well as leading the nicSO. Let the
> Registrants participate to the nicSO. etc...
>
> 3. Let stop objecting the emergence of the new governance centers. Let take
> advantage from them. Competition and task distribution will help us all.
> ICANN wants to maintain what I name the AmerICANN Circus show round the
> planet? Let see if the VeriSign meetings in Herndon are or not taking some
> useful momentum. Would ICANN Staff object to talk there, I suppose no more
> that VeriSign people or Minc people to come in MdR. Look, I am not afraid
> being a BoD candidate while developing my own extended root - not because I
> want to fight the ICANN but because I want to help it growing and opening
> to the reality.
>
> Jefsey
>
> At 20:06 01/09/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >I meant 'turn it into a separate, free-standing, body' (but the phrase was
> >perhaps ambiguous, as it might have implied continuing ICANN control,
> >sorry).
> >
> >I am coming to think this is also the answer for IP # function which
> >should be separate from the DNS function and from IANA.
> >
> >On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> >
> > > What does "hive it off" mean ??
> > >
> > > Peter de Blanc
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> > > Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:45 AM
> > > To: Roberto Gaetano
> > > Cc: jandl@jandl.com; ga@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> > >
> > >
> > > Since those aspects of ccTLD managment are handled by 'IANA', and 'IANA'
> > > seems to be exempt from all ICANN transparency rules, why not just hive
> > > it off?
> > >
> > > (Readers wanting to know about the IANA/ICANN separation fiction are
> > > invited to read a series of articles on ccTLD issues that have appeared
> > > on www.icannwatch.org in the last few months...)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >
> > > > Leah,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Actually, you have a serious point. I have long wondered why ccTLDs
> > > > >should not simply be included in the root and let it go at that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With which mechanism?
> > > > I mean, who decides if a "thing" is a ccTLD or not, and if the
> > > > operator is
> > > > authoritative?
> > > > Somebody must have the responsibility for inclusion of a new TLD,
> > > things do
> > > > not just happen by themselves.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On 30 Aug 2001, at 20:08, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, I kind of wonder
> > > > > > 1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
> > > >
> > > > Because ccTLDs have no other possibility to be included in the root.
> > > > The situation is not static, countries appear and disappear, and new
> > > > records shall be created/removed. You may consider it unfortunate, but
> > >
> > > > ICANN has this authority, even if it acts only under adult supervision
> > >
> > > > by USG (by USG has made it clear since the Ira Magaziner times that it
> > >
> > > > wants to operate behind the curtain, delegating the front role to an
> > > > entity acting under agreement with USG). In other words, if it is not
> > > > ICANN, it must be somebody else, since the real owner
> > > > (USG) considers politically unwise to act directly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If they don't want to, they should be free not to.
> > > > But if I were a ccTLD Registry, I would consider myself a stakeholder,
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > would like to have a say in what is going on. Just like Registrants
> > > are
> > > > trying to do.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Roberto
> > > >
> > > > P.S.: Just curious, why these questions? What is the alternative
> > > > scenario
> > > > that you envisage for entry/exit from the root?
> > > > - ccTLDs "self-manage";
> > > > - USG acting directly;
> > > > - a third entity different from ICANN does it (VeriSign?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > > > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >--
> > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> >A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
> >U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> >+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> > -->It's very hot and humid here.<--
> >
> >--
> >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
>
> --
> 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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|