Re: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>  Dear Bill,
> I do not understand you. You well discuss the double absurdity of the
> Joe Sims approach:
> " - the ICANN is a policy center due to mission creep
>   - the ICANN does a wrong policy."
> And you say: "we have to correct that policy together".

Don't think I said that, but if that interpretation creeped through, it
was not intended.

>
> No! We have to stop the ICANN from being a policy center.

That is also true, but not perzactly the issue I was raising, which was:

ICANN suffers from delusions of grandeur that is traceable to its
decisions early on to claim such omnipotence that the voices of the
individuals were not necessary. It is that mind set, and its origin,
that was the subject of my post.

> ICANN has a poor policy, but even if the ICANN was carrying good
> policy it would be wrong, because this not the appropriate place for
> any policy at all. Again, I do not want my telephone to be democratic:
> I want it to work.

Exactly what I would have said if that were the issue I had addressed.
(I might not have
thought of the telephone bit, though -- good show!)

> ICANN is to hold three registries and to address the problem of the
> transfer of the USG root server system to the Global Internet
> Community. Its only policy is to establish (SOs) the prerequisites for
> being registered and how (SSRAC) the root server system single point
> of failure and bottle neck will fade away.

I'm not enough of a techie to have said that, but you are so I'll echo
it!

> The rest is pure wasted time, effort and money and network/world
> destabilization.

Concur.

Bill


--
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