Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

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

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

On 08:15 03/03/02, William S. Lovell said:
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Meanwhile, back at NSI, it was seeking to claim ownership of the .com,
>.org and .gov names as such -- a truly arrogant effort that was properly
>thwarted. So what's to own? (Even though NSI was sold to Verisign for $17
>billion, gained from "property" belonging to the USG -- which is to say,
>you and me.)

I am sorry this property does not belong to you and me because of the USG
(I am French).

True, true! Even I have to remind myself now and then that my posts go
'round
the world, as do those of all of our whole bunch here!  :-)
> It belongs to you and me because we said so in 1980s
> when
> com was decided by Mr. Boutmy's team and net by Mr. Haykens and me.
So fill us in! That would be a fascinating tale to read.

>Upon what authority does ICANN act? What lawful control over the Internet,
>and both the technical and policy aspects of it, does the USG have?

None. But it has the IANA function management incuding the USG root seve
system master root file management.

>please dont call it a "global ICANN" -- we've seen enough of that.)

Global has a precise meaning I fought for in early 1980s to introduce
stablity in the naming plan in spite of the large number of inteconnected
systems with different footpahts.

Global, yes; ICANN, no. Read on below.

The ICANN global network has the precise
meaning of "all the parts of the Interconnected Networks for which the
ICANN serves as a naming and address common registry".

> > The NIC will form an ICANN constituency-orgnization-SO [as you may like]
> > and will work at being acknowldged as the ICANN/GA. The ICANN contract will
> > then be replaced by a voted global ICANN  NIC Membership equal to all. This
> > Membeship will detail the committees/SOs etc.. the different groups of a
> > NIC will participate to.
>
>Again, please drop the ICANN nomenclature -- there's too much baggage being
>carried along with it.

The ICANN is properly designed. It is just sick of itself.  That is to
consider itself as the center of the world instead of being the servant of
everyone (the "net keeper"). You may change the words out of furstration
but the functions will stay.

Not necessarily.  You say "But it has the IANA function management
incuding the
USG root sever system master root file management." But any bunch of
folks with
access to a global phone system and a pile of computers can construct
the very
same thing as it stands on day X, start using it, and ignore the IANA
and ICANN.
Right? If icannatlarge (under whatever name) succeeded in helping to
isolate the
originally intended technical function undertaken by ICANN,
without all of the
policy baggage, UDRPs and other trash that it cooked up at the behest
of guess
who, then we could similarly generate a forceful, globally based voice
that in
fact would deal with general issues of internet governance --
a voice that we
have never had, nor would ever have, within ICANN.

(Of course, should icannatlarge be drawn into the friendly folds of ICANN at
Accra, the term ICANN would remain and what you refer to above would be
the way to go, and you'd be perfectly correct.  My running premise (see other
post of this date) is that that will not happen. The NIC per se would not be
involved under my premise, but the very same folks who have the expertise
in this field might well decide then to become involved, one would hope. In
fact, to have icannatlarge a part of ICANN would, to my mind, be doing it
the hard way -- it would be a fight with ICANN every inch of the way,
whereas if the entity I speak of had no ICANN association, we could tell
ICANN to "go away and don't bother us.")

Bill