Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty. The
point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root, or
only one Internet. And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is political
rather than technical and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4 space
by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of China.

Poof - with this type of technology you get instant independent namespace
and IP address space as well. And its so simple to implement relative to the
existing practices and technologies, that its almost laughable...

Now the world and the techies will jump up and down screaming gross
oppression, and that they have a"right" (and I assume we will soon hear
Cisco screaming about this too)... but the fact of the matter is that this
is the ONLY way any country can impose eBorders, and that is something
despite ICANN, that each and every country has the right and need to do.

The problem is that ICANN and its PSO's have made it almost
impossible,without this type of compartmentalization, of having a judicial
boundary for anything electronic... And this is based in no restraint or
understanding of the global effects of new protocols on the Internet, and
the ISP's and long haul carriers just blindly laughing and routing them.

If The Internet was truly compartmentalized then Napster would not have been
anything close to the problem it was since it could be addressed this way.
Same diff with Kiddy Porn sites, and other illegal offerings.

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Baptista" <baptista@dot-god.com>
To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>; <vcerf@mci.net>;
<lynn@icann.org>; <ga@dnso.org>; "Nancy J. Victory" <nvictory@ntia.doc.gov>;
"Don Evans" <DEvans@doc.gov>; "cathy Handley" <chandley@ntia.doc.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform


>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   Vint, frankly you know full well that the "Blueprint" is no and
> > was not agreed upon by the stakeholders and is as such
> > just another disguise to disenfranchise stakeholders/users
> > from participation directly.  Therefore what you suggest below
> > for Shangi will be yet another disaster and a complete sham.
>
> the chiness will love the blueprint - they won't participate - but they'll
> love the blueprint.
>
> regards
> joe
>
> --
> 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