Re: [ga-roots] Re: Oh c'mon, Kent [was: Re: Criminalization of alt roots]

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

The answer is long winded but quite simple for for us to proclaim.  If you count
number of nations and not necessarily population, free-enterprise and promotion
of competition is the overwhelming consensus.  The CFR which put all of this in
motion makes that abundantly clear for the U.S.  I have read no less than 6
other nation's executive orders which share this sentiment. The only real
balancing act is stability, national security and cultural integrity.

It seems competition is favored as long as we avoid "colisions".  Hence the term
coopetative roots.  Open competition in the market, with cooperation for
operational and structural integrity.

Please go to; Ms. Rony's site: http://www.domainhandbook.com/congress.html or to
the many other great sites which layout the actual legal documents setting forth
the policy regarding competition and it's promotion.

(this is not just about "alt-roots" but also very important to the issue of the
Verisign monoploy)
The policy issue is the same - we want competition only to be bridled by
technical stability and I have not heard the technical side of our assembly
suggest there is any real problem as long as we cooperate.

This is what we should see in a letter from DoC;
"In accordance with they initial and subsequent enabling documentation and
directives, ICANN is ordered, to forthwith bring itself into compliance with the
contracting provisions of it's contract with the DoC and the APA and immediately
begin coordination with what is publicly referred to as "alt-roots".  Failure to
comply with this demand will result in termination of the existing agreement
with the DoC, pursuant to the terms of said agreement."

What do you think Mr. Corliss, that should work shouldn't it?  I would hope
those operating outside ICANN would find it in their collective consciences to
join in such cooperative coordination.

Sincerely,


Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Gene
>
> On Saturday, May 05, 2001 12:34 PM (AEST), Gene Marsh wrote:
>
> > Kent, that begs the question, are you here to discuss these issues
> > seriously or to be a naysayer to anyone who does not share your
> > enlightened view?
>
> Kent has avoided responding to any of my posts whether on [ga-roots] or
> [ga-tm].  If you go back and read them you will see I have raised some
> serious issues.  Perhaps I am on his filters.  If so, could you please ask
> Kent the following question:
>
> I have been advised by two ICANN Board Members, and several other respected
> persons, that ICANN does not have a policy in relation to *alternate* roots.
>
> Kent himself has advocated making the *alternate roots* illegal in the
> United States.  As this wouldn't work internationally and as nobody else
> agrees with this policy, can Kent provide any more reasonable alternative.
>
> The question to ask is:
>
>     As the role of the DNSO General Assembly is to provide consensus-based
>     policy input to ICANN, what should that consensus-based policy be?
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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