[ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere

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

Todd and all stakeholders or interested parties,

todd glassey wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 2:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
>
> > Todd and all stakeholders interested parties,
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > Ron may be right about the South African Governments Intent, but it
> really
> > > makes no difference to the bigger picture. The concept of the Global
> > > Internet and a One Earth Network is still 20-50 years away I think.
> >
> >   The concept of a "one Earth Network" is already here for all practical
> > purposes.  Yes, indeed there are a very few very remote areas of
> > sparsely populated areas that cannot be reached via any kind of
> > network connection.  But they are fast disappearing.
>
> No, I think its more that what is here is a one root network.

  Well according the the ICANN BOD and staff that seems to be
true and how they would like it to remain.  The facts are though
that in Asia for instance, other Root networks are in place and
expanding.  This shall continue.  The EU as well is in the
planning stages of developing their own Root structure as
well as was recently announced.  Hence, as I originally said,
"The concept of a "one Earth Network" is already here for all practical
 purposes.  Yes, indeed there are a very few very remote areas of
 sparsely populated areas that cannot be reached via any kind of
 network connection.  But they are fast disappearing."

>
>
> >
> > > And is
> > > more political and based in the need for Countries to enforce their
> > > boundaries than in technologies. The other mitigating factor is that the
> > > persona that ICANN puts forth, especially with all the in-fighting going
> on
> > > visibly below it, is that the proposed "management of the Internet" is
> > > equally incompetent.
> >
> >   The present form of "management of the Internet" that this ICANN
> > BoD and staff are attempting to impose is indeed incompetent, and is also
> > not following the White Paper and the MoU.
>
> But there is no real reason for anyone to have to buy into the ICANN
> philosophy. Anyone that would operate their own root can do this.

  Exactly my original point.  And a philosophy that IENGroup reached
some 3 years ago now...

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron, its not that the one-world idea is bad, its just that as a race, we
> as
> > > a global culture are not ready yet for this love-peace-knowledge picture
> of
> > > the Internet. Until organizations like the UN willing accept the
> > > responsibility for global peace and the creation of a Terran Bill of
> Rights
> > > or a definition of the Human Birthright here on Earth of which this
> Internet
> > > is an integral part, we will have these problems.
> >
> >   The UN plays a role, all be it an important one, but still only a role.
>
> Yes that's my point. WIPO is not enough.

  Exactly!  The WTO seems to also be in some trouble as you
may be aware, and loosing favor amongst a host of nations.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > To that end I propose that the only smart thing to do is to not fight
> the
> > > establishment's and let them go onward with compartmentalizing and
> creating
> > > eBorders from the Internet's networking model. To do this will really
> piss
> > > ICANN off since it means that they failed.
> >
> >   The present ICANN BOD and staff have already basically admitted that
> > they have failed with Lynn's proposed restructure ideas, which seem to
> > change radically with almost each passing day...
>
> Yes, well when you are grasping at straws...

  ROFLMAO!  How true!  >;)

>
>
> >
> > > Not that their vision was wrong
> > > individually, but that collectively they couldn't get their act
> together,
> > > and so now others will step in and take over as with what SA is
> proposing.
> >
> >   Indeed true..
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > My personal feeling is that it will take the restructuring of layer two
> and
> > > three to accommodate but this solves many mechanical issues that ICANN
> was
> > > unable to address - the technology is simple...
> > >
> > >     1)    If a Root Zone based query/response model is erected atop DNS
> then
> > > we will have capability for a truly interoperable infrastructure.
> >
> >   Yes, and this can be several levels deep.  BTW, this is already underway
> > in various forms...
>
> Most of them leave the ICANN as the single root operator though and thats
> where I decouple form the mainstream techie line at this time. The one root
> concept is the problem not the answer.

  Very much agreed.  It is not even technically sound in the present
geo-economic trade environment today...  And as time passes
the single Root structure becomes less viable.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >     2)    If the layer-2/layer-3 Internet is compartmentalized into
> > > definable areas and eBorders are allowed to become a reality, then
> obviously
> > > a NAT style gateway between each eBorderd DNS Tree could have its own
> > > individual address space...
> >
> >   Also true, and also underway..
>
> yes and this is being done pretty much on the QT as well. But it does
> formally establish eBorders for the Internet and have them intersect at
> major switching centers.

  Well not really so much on the QT, but not all that visible on ICANN's
radar screen, as it should be..  But when the ICANN BoD and especially
the ICANN staff purposefully ignores or actively thwarts or resists
reality, it harms everyone...  That is just plain silliness...

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >     3)    The creation of a flattened "global Area" in the area
> constrained
> > > by #1 and #2 gives us global network interoperability...
> > >
> > > So lets see:    #1 solves the need for more domain names... Each DNS
> Zone
> > > can have its own unique set of TLD's; #2 solves the availability of IP
> > > Addresses since each eBordered zone would have its own IPv4 space and
> talk
> > > to the global Internet Interconnect though a well-knows set of
> addresses.
> > >
> > > What more do we need?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> > > To: <eric@hi-tek.com>
> > > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 1:10 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> > >
> > > Good morning, Eric,
> > >
> > > Eric wrote:
> > >
> > > >Dear Ron,
> > >
> > > >Ron Sherwood wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Dear fellow at-largers:
> > > >>
> > > >>     Today's report on the political battle over .za is copied below.
> > > >>
> > > >>     The claim that the majority of South Africans do not have access
> to
> > > the Internet, has nothing >>whatsoever to do with Domain Name
> management.
> > > It is simply political deception used to persuade the >>ignorant to
> accept
> > > nationalization of that management.
> > > >
> > > >Please show us where you get this information.  It may not be their
> > > >fault but it may welll be their creation.
> > >
> > > The story came from the Reuters wire service with a June 7, 2002, Cape
> Town,
> > > South Africa dateline. It was also covered on CNN.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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