[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] what IF

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all stakeholders, interested parties, and assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Jim,
> I thank you for your analysis. What you basically say is that should the
> ICANN be blown up,

  Jefsey, it would seem that you have again expressed what a growing
number of stakeholders on a global scale are, or already have expressed
in different terms regarding ICANN.

>
>
> 1. the Registrars and Registries would - at the end of the day - be of more
> under direct yet boring concern of the DoC, so probably under Congress and
> Justice scrutiny. What is good for us.

  I think that without the USG ongoing direct involvement the DNS, IP
allocation and Protocol central parts of the Internet as we know it,
will fragment even farther and much faster than it already has done
as a result of the ICANN BOD and staff's inept leadership, management
practices and policy determination.

  Something LIKE ICANN must remain.  Maybe a name change along
with a wholesale executive management and BoD (Board Squatters especially)
replacement is necessary to clean up the mess that has been created and
getting worse or more of a mess, by the present and past ICANN BoD
and staff.  Those diapers are now full, and smelling badly.

>
>
> 2. the TLDs would quickly form a working group to keep the DoC informed of
> the root updates and no more TLDs would be added. This means no more risk
> of artifical collision with open TLDs.

  I don't believe what you are proposing here means that no more collisions
would occur unless a SharredRoot or MultiRoot system was migrated too.
This is happening now anyway, it would be better if it were coordinated
by a partnership of GOvernment(s) and the Private sector, but ICANN
with it's present leadership, has not shown the necessary skills to
accomplish this.  Hence the Need for an At-Large in part to replace
the dead wood at the top, and install direction from the bottom...

>
>
> 3. IP allocation would continue being "manipulated" (if it is the right
> word) but more transparently and two additional NICs would be formed to the
> benefit of the Internet community.

  One new RIR is already in place, but seemingly not functioning due to
lack of good honest direction.  See: http://lacnic.org/en/index.html  But
I have to agree that more are needed if they can provide a basis
for a sound and competent BoD and staff for each answerable to
their and the central At-Large members...

> This sounds positive, and the real issue
> being IPv6, probably Asia and Europe would be the leaders anyway.

  Good point here, but one that will not be tolerated by the USG I am
quite sure...

>
>
> Does anyone see any reason why we want to keep the ICANN?

  In it's present form with it's present leadership by in large, no...
So your on the right track I think here Jefsey... >;)  And INEGroup
is willing, able and happy to work with you or anyone along these lines...

>
> Jefsey
>
> On 19:38 22/03/02, Jim Fleming said:
> >From: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
> > > Just a question to those who really know...
> > > What if the ICANN closed shop?
> > > Could someone(s) provide a fair timing of what would happen and when?
> > > when / who would notice?
> >
> >I you compare ICANN to a major labor union, you will see that it
> >is useful for "management" to push the complaint department and other
> >human resource problems off on to the "union". ICANN is the perfect group
> >for the Registrars and Registries to "use" to direct customers who complain
> >about fraud, poor treatment, service, etc. Since ICANN apparently does
> >almost nothing to enforce the reems of contracts they have coerced people
> >into signing, they end up having no impact on their supporters and they offer
> >the public a false agency to appeal to with problems. If people did not have
> >ICANN, they might be more likely to call the U.S. Government. Those people
> >do not want to take the calls, and therefore will be happy to keep ICANN
> >in place.
> >
> >Without ICANN, the legacy root server operators would operate their
> >servers just like the other root server confederations. It appears that a
> >working
> >set of about 256 TLDs is now common. Those TLD managers would likely
> >form a trade association, and prevent any more TLDs from being added.
> >
> >The real problem that must be addressed is the unfair IP address allocations
> >from the Postel Regime. ICANN appears clueless and ARIN is really in
> >control, with RIPE and APNIC below ARIN in the pecking order. Without
> >ICANN, ARIN would pop to the top and two other NICs would likely be
> >added to make it appear as though there was some fairness. Since there is
> >a very tight coupling between ARIN and the legacy root servers, the ICANN
> >insiders would become more visible operating in those structures. In other
> >words, ICANN is now a structure to help distract people from what the
> >I* society insiders are doing, manipulating the address allocations. When
> >Postel created ICANN, it was clear to many people that it would be a
> >smoke-screen to hide what was really going on at ARIN, RIPE and APNIC
> >which used to report directly to Postel. When he passed away, ICANN
> >quickly replaced him in the structure and is now a solid part of the
> >Internet Labor Union.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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