Re: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Jim,
I certainly appreciate your mail. But please be fair with Lynn (I enough 
dispute him to be able to say that!). He also says:

<quote>
Q: Would you consider usefulness of new TLDs before adding them?
A: If there is no demanding, pressing consumer need that's perceived, then 
why risk destabilization in other areas?
</quote>

The point is that Lynn endangers most probably far more the stability and 
the security of the Internet than he thinks. Let assume he is honest (for 
discussion sake you can give me that point for a minute): how would he know 
that there is a "demanding, pressing consumer need" when he takes every 
step to kill the possibility of that demand and for him to learn about it.

In its ICP-3 he talks about "experimental" TLDs but do not give any frame 
to them as we did with the Root and TLD Best Practices ( 
http://boroon.com/pdf_e/rcdc-05-E-RTBP-RootTLDBestPractices.pdf ).

The point is that "alt(sic)root" are no solution to the TLD, security and 
stability needs. They are just a patch to the ICANN oddities. The solution 
is in a review of our /usage/ of the DNS.

DNS is three things:

- a continuation of the international data network naming plan initiated by 
the UN in the 50s,  stabilized in its present semantic in 1978 by Tymnet 
International, US IRCs and foreign monopolies of the time. It is 
progressively managed by the IANA alone since the end of the 80s.

- an IP address resolution system designed by Mokapertis in 1982 which can 
be used for many other things. Some see it as a data base, some as an 
information system. I see it more as a search protocol. These are the 
star/meshed/distributed network cultures we meet everywhere which make so 
many people to misunderstand while they are in agreement :-)

- a default service proposed by many sources: USG servers, intranet 
systems, ccTLDs, alt(sic)roots and ISPs.

The naming plan is misunderstood. The program is fine. The usage is 
outdated. When Mokapertis defined the Internet restriction of the naming 
plan the Internet was an /interconnected/ network as several others (the 
first use of "com" I know of was in 1980 by Mr. Boutmy's team in Heindhoven 
for the Philips international corporate network). Today the Internet has 
become the World's /interconnecting/ system. A serious change.

Lynn is perfectly right about security, cybersquatting etc... But what he 
does not see is that he is creating the tension and leading to the break. 
No one actually needs the ICANN and the USG root on the long range, but 
having them would be better for everyone. Lynn's task should be to 
accompany and even lead the transition, so the ICANN stays the core of the 
system. In blocking a natural development and in competing withe the real 
networks forces, he leads to the clash he wants to avoid.

What will probably happen is that the NTIA people will understand the 
technical fragility of the current system. Find the obvious proper solution 
and will impose it for GovNet to Microsoft. This may be a temporary blow 
for Verisign and Microsoft (specially if we wait for a long as they 
stabilize their marketing on an outdated approach). But I am sure that 
these corporations will easily find the way to develop new strategies to 
take advantage from it - actually I hope they only work on the basis that 
ICANN is only a contingency plan, or they would be fool what they are not.

When the solution is imposed by the NTIA for security reasons in every USG 
Windows system, the whole world will ask Microsoft the security solution 
devised by the USG for GovNet. If the ICANN helped that to occur it will be 
the core of he world, Verisign will organize with MicroSoft and Sun and 
many new US and international interests.

Otherwise there will be some destabilization until the Internet stabilized 
again as cooperated from many places in the world and the US Internet 
industry is eventually stuck in an anti-trust obsolete case against 
VeriSign and ICANN (cf. Plan B DoJ positions).

Jefsey

At 05:05 21/11/01, Jim Fleming wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eric Dierker" <eric@hi-tek.com>
>To: <ga@dnso.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:08 PM
>Subject: [ga] Motion and request for amendment
>
>
> > I Eric Dierker, being a member of the GA of ICANN, hereby make motion
> > that the GA agree, reach consensus and evidence by a vote, formal or
> > otherwise, that the BC (business constituency within the DNSO of ICANN)
> > is currently acting in direct contravention of the Green Papers the
> > White Papers, all and amended contracts with the DoC (department of
> > commerce of the US gov).....
>
>In my opinion, you might want to study the long history that lead up
>to the founding of ICANN. You stated at the ICANN meeting that you
>became an Internet user 18 months ago. That may make it hard to emcompass
>the past 7 years of history and the years before 1995, where the small
>circle of Jon Postel's cronies systematically controlled the allocation of
>basic Internet resources through their combined government and educational
>institution network, aided by a small group of corporate supporters who
>realized they could make a lot of money, for doing very little, by supporting
>that regime. That worked as long as the general public was given the
>"mushroom treatment" (i.e. kept in the dark and fed manure).
>
>Here is a sample....
>http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html
>"...ICANN's Lynn: No new domains anytime soon..."
>....
>Q: If there are no technical impediments to adding top-level domains, 
>would that essentially obligate you to do so?
>A: No. We do have other responsibilities in creating a level playing field 
>and a fair place for competition.
>-----------------
>
>It all boils down to fairness.
>Which list do you think is more fair ?
>The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>or
>The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
>People are now prepared to route around ICANN. Thanks to Microsoft,
>all of the technology is in people's hands (via Windows XP) to break
>free from the shackles of the Postel regime and to build a larger, more
>open, and more free Internet, that all of the world's people can be proud of,
>not just the small circle of insiders who have conspired for years to
>control the allocation of Internet resources for their own financial gain.
>
>Jim Fleming
>http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
>http://www.in-addr.info
>3:219 INFO
>
>--
>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