Re: Re[2]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

My last post for the day on this. If I enable dns settings for one of the
other roots, since they are inclusive I can go to com net org AND all the
others. By not doing so my choices are limited to whatever ICANN approves.
ICANN's track record is not one that would garner trust in most people that
they will just do the right thing. One offers me more choices and the other
seeks to limit my choices and I'm supposed to want the latter?

I do not accept as little as you do. I am not putting out ideas that aren't
there in your posts. Youn seem to trust ICANN will do it for the good of
all. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. That has been proven time and time
again.

I trusted the US Government to do things for the good of all because I have
no choice. Our organization searches for missing children. The USG spent
more on stray dogs last year than on missing children. But I am sure that
they did it for our own good.

That is the same I fear from any one entity claiming to be the One True
Authoritative Root. Especially when that same entity does not seek to even
go through with what little it has actually said it would do. Namely
election of 9 Board Members. Instead they ordered a study and even then
hamper the study itself. They have set events in place to assure no study
will be concluded in time to hold those elections before the USG gives them
more control over the root. Then there will be another reason for no
elections and no one to stop them.

How many of those seats that were to be voted on will now go to the ccTLD
Constituency to humor them? I doubt they will expand the number of Board
members and seriously doubt there will be more elections. They fear the Karl
Auerbach's, The Miulton Mueller's, and others who are willing to speak up.
They know that most of what they have done already would not have been
approved if they had 9 @Large Board members.

I especially don't trust anyone who fights vehemently against individuals
being represented on the BoD or at least having a Constituency. I can't
remember ever agreeing with Kent Crispin on anything, but even he sees the
need for individual representation and I believe would not try to hinder
that. Do I read that wrong Kent?

As far as Stuart Lynn, the only things I know are what I read, hear, and
see. I have first that paper he wrote and posted as if it were policy, then
bnacktracked on it just like a good politician does. Then at Stockholm, he
seemed insulted when even Board members suggested that giving him any leeway
to add anything to the new regional registry's contracts without Board
Approval. What I saw was someone trying to confuse the issue and belittle
any talk that would keep him from this added little decision making power.

What is so special about having that extra power when the Board was not all
that hot to give it to you Mr. Lynn? I may not understand everything about
the Internet, but I do understand human nature and politics. Unfortunately
the majority does not see what small little power grabs here and there add
up to overall and that allows these things to go on as they do.

If ICANN truly was ever seeking to gain a bottom up consensus on anything
they would have already done more to recruit more people to participate in
these groups and mailing lists. Why is it when I speak with people who are
very well known on the web and very savvy when it comes to things involving
the Internet that they still don't know of and have never been invited to
participate on these discussions?

If even the savvy haven't been invited nor have they even been aware of most
of this going on, then we know the majority of users will never be heard. It
seems the opinion of a few here that those who know the technical aspects of
the web should run things and make decisions for the rest of us non-techies.

I agree with that when only technical issues are involved. From what I have
read the IETF has done fine in that regard. But when decisions that affect
freedom of speech, freedom of choice, fair competition, privacy, security,
and political power, the techies are not the only ones who should be
involved. There are those on the Names Council and on the ICANN BoD that
believe that as well. Only they think the others who should make those
decisions are lawyers.

The funny thing in all this is that you are asking everyone to trust a bunch
of lawyers to look out after our best interests and you expect us to buy
that. I fully suspect the GA and the @Large don't stand a chance to change
what the lawyers of ICANN have set into motion. We are here to be kept busy
while they sell the Internet to the highest bidder. The USG could have done
that without ICANN. A warning to the BoD; As treacherous as I think you have
been, you are weaklings compared to the treachery in governments. Watch that
they don't sell it out from under you.


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>
To: "ga - icann" <ga-icann@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 7:30 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider


> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: owner-ga-icann@dnso.org On Behalf Of NameCritic
> |> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 11:41 AM
> |> To: dassa@dhs.org
> |> Cc: ga - icann
> |> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider
>
> |> WalMart moving in next to a small shop doesn't suggest the shop owner
> close
> |> up either but that is the result and when you do that on a consistant
> basis
> |> unfair business practices does come into play.
>
> Except that in the situation we are talking about is equilivent to the
> small shops opening up next to WalMart and then complaining about Walmart
> being there and having similar products to those introduced in the new
> shops.  The analogy doesn't support the claim and is actually in support
of
> ICANN.
>
>
> |> You don't see that as one-sided? If the alt roots created a .com they
> would
> |> be wrong, but if ICANN does the same to a dot biz it's ok? Do you
reread
> |> your own posts?
>
> Did you read what was written?  I didn't say the alt.roots creating a .com
> would be wrong (although I think it would be suicidal).  If one did, they
> would have to be careful not to imping on the legacy name space and market
> it appropriately.  The main problem we have at present is the alt.roots
> trying to muscle in on the legacy name space.  If they maintain their
> distinct name space and market it as such, there is no problem.  ICANN by
> introducing a .biz is not interferring with the other name space, it does
> not attempt to include alt.root name spaces into the legacy root.  The
only
> conflict the introduction of .biz into the legacy root that may occur is
if
> alt.root operators try to maintain an inclusion of the legacy root name
> space into their own.  To use your own analogy, the small shop owner
trying
> to build a shop that surrounds WallMart.
>
>
> |> That is exactly where you miss the point. It doesn't NEED TO BENEFIT
> ICANN!
>
> Please note I didn't state it had to benefit ICANN.  I too mentioned users
> etc.  And I went further to state there has not been any arguments put
> forward there are advantages for users that outweigh the disadvantages.
>
> |> The policies are to benefit the users. These are not mega
> |> corporations in commercial competition. If it was you would be correct.
> This is
> |> a nonprofit entity that is supposed to be acting on MY behalf and on
the
> |> behalf of all regular users of the Internet, but instead it is doing
> just as
> |> you stated, acting as if it were in a corporate battle for some market
> share. You
> |> somehow have gotten it in your head that this is what ICANN is
> |> supposed to do. Therefore you defend corporate policies that belong
> somewhere like
> |> Verisign, AT&T, and GM. The United Way doesn't make a habit of crushing
> |> smaller Nonprofits nor do they attempt to shut them out. That
> |> is what ICANN should be following as a nonprofit model not following
the
> |> other corporate examples.
>
> No, you are attributing ideas to me that are not correct.  Although I see
> no real problem with a non-profit operating along commercial lines.  They
> are much more viable and vibrant by doing so.
>
> The main point is that the commercial operations of the alt.roots as they
> now stand have no benefits for users that outweigh the disadvantages.  It
> is my firm belief that ICANN, although slow to introduce new TLD's, offers
> the best protection for users and provides the most stable and reliable
> name space.
>
> Why should ICANN assist and encourage commercial alt.root operations?  Why
> should ICANN cooperate with alt.root operators?
>
> To promote competition?  We don't want competition at the name space
level,
> it is counter productive.  ICANN is introducing more TLD's and that
process
> should become more efficient in future.  There should be enough
competition
> at that level to satisfy all needs.
>
> If someone has good arguments for the Internet to have open slather at the
> name space level where anyone can set up a root server and establish
> whatever TLD's they want (which we do have now) and for ICANN to cooperate
> with those operators and include them into the legacy root (which we don't
> have), I certainly would like to hear about them.
>
> One thing people have to keep in mind.  Any policy ICANN establishes to
> recognise any alt.root will cause a rush for others to get the same
> benefits.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-icann@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-icann" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-icann@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-icann" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html