Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 05:01 25/11/01, Sandy Harris said:
> >   So I suppose the onely question reamaining is do we try to fix
> > ICANN or do we seek to replace it and start all over again?
>
>Do we have that choice? And who are the "we" in that sentence?
>
>What groups might have the power to dismantle, or otherwise fundamentally
>change ICANN?

Dear Sandy and all,
we all know that the ICANN is only capitalizing on ICP-3 enforcement. The 
BC Charter proposition shows it: authors only really propose as a real 
bound between Members: adoration of the ICP-3.

Why? Because without users' usage of the "single authoritative root server 
system" there is no control of the USG over the Internet. That control is 
the weakness of the Internet, so security calls for many to disanfranchise 
themselves from the USG root.

Is that possible? Theorytically this is obvious. Now we needed a proof of 
concept: New.net has provided it. However New.net is still embarassed with 
the ISP and a dedicated pug-in because New.net is a business operation: 
they only got the money to develop their own tool and the incentive for a 
certain type of operations. Nevertheless everything is here.

So the point is not to dismantle the ICANN or change it or replace it. The 
ICANN corresponds to a certain market need which is going to be obsolete. 
What we only have to do is to support a more realistic, secure and stable 
way to use the Internet and explain it around. This will progressively 
phase out the old concepts ICANN is built upon, or will push the ICANN to 
adapt as there is room for an ICANN service in the real Internet, but not 
for its mission creep.

Jefsey



--
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