[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC would be governance status?

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

Vint - Jefsey brought up some interesting points...
----- Original Message -----
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
To: <discuss@icann-ncc.org>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:48 AM
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC would be governance status?


> I am confused about the impact on Governance of the ISOC bid being
favored.
>
> 1. ISOC is designing the Internet technology through IETF, IESG, IAB, W3C,

Sort of, these are actually ICANN's PSO's but the real issue is that the
IETF is not the only body that designs or standardizes Internet
Technologies - the ITU and IEEE bith have working groups working on
protocols and protocol process work-product. The problem is that the IAB has
been very constrained to not accept any technologies that have not been
vetted in its one-sided IETF environment.

What this says is that the IAB demands that it is the one and only body that
decides what goes on the Internet, but in reality it is not even that. Who
decides then what is and is not routed at at tier-3 (the ISP's) of the
Internet is the ISP's? The carriers and no one else at this time. As to the
IAB, they are respponsible for bring protocols to the net that have caused
more damage than good becuase they couldn't be bothered with how the
protocols worked in commercial or the real worlds, just that they worked
towards the IETF's models.

What arrogance you and the founders have erected Vint.

> 2. ISOC does not claim to 'represent' Internet users anymore, but more to
> 'support' them

This is a serious charge since it marks a serious change in the scope and
direction of ISOC's charter.  Further, if the charge is true, for ISOC's
Board to make this change that is fundamental to the direction of ISOC may
also have legal ramifications especially for people that paid money to join
ISOC, me included. I personally suggest that until these stability issues
are worked out, that allowing ISOC to take the .ORG TLD is more than
negligence, it is likely a conspiracy to defraud the existing paid members.

Just my two cents.

> 3. ISOC financial stance will out stand all the other Internet
participants
> 4. ISOC could not claim anymore to be part of the NCC as a gTLD
> constituency member
>
> I wanted this situation to be avoided in making sure that ICANN could not
> benefit from the .org divestiture. I feel that what we could fear in the
> past from ICANN could be feared from ISOC. Are we not facing an anti-trust
> possibility?
>
> Would Gov not now consider carefully the possibility of transferring
> ICANN's missions to a self funded, well established, technology competent
> ISOC. And even if this was not articulated quickly, nothing will prevent
> real life from being real life and powers granted this way to ISOC to be
> used and acknowledged by people, interests and media.
>
> Am I right in saying that we did not investigated yet all the impact this
> may have on VRSN, Neulevel, Affilias, ccTLD, EU, China balances to start
> with? on the @large relations? on the global control and economy of the
> network? on innovation?.
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
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