RE: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 11:04 PM
|> To: [ga-roots]
|> Cc: Thomas Roessler
|> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings
|>
|> If you check the archives for this subject header you will see that
there
|> have been at least 20 or 30 posts since you laid this false trail.  Yet
you
|> still come back to it time and time again.  Let's move onto the proposed
|> policy or you will stand accused of diverting this debate.

Yes, there have been numerous posts and numerous opportunities for input
that would show some reason why I and others should take any notice of any
other root than the legacy root.  Unfortunately, there has not been any
compelling reasons given nor has there been any attempt to develop a better
understanding of the position some of the posters are holding.  Instead
there have been attempts to discount my own viewpoint as a red herring and
personal attacks.  Not what I would call developing co-operation or putting
forward an alternative viewpoint.  Nor does calling it a false trail impose
that definition on what I am putting forward.  A large part of which are
calls for responses that would promote the concept of co-operation.

Personally I feel that knowledge of the management and structure behind the
other roots is an important issue.  I also consider if they are in it for
purely commercial gain is important.  Although I am not against commercial
interests and indulge in some myself, I believe there are some places where
they should not be welcomed.  I consider the Internet, a public network, is
better served by the main infrastructures being in community hands and not
in the hands of individuals who are there to make money and have little
concern for issues that are of concern to individuals/communities with a
purely public interest intention.  That is not to say there is not a place
for commercial interests.  We already have them at various levels, I do not
like the thought of them being in control of the root level however.
Personally, I would prefer them not to be at even the Registry level but
that is an issue already closed.

And when talking about co-operation, just where is the line drawn, how is
it intended to limit a free for all.  If ICANN develops a policy of
allowing other roots into the legacy root, how is the criteria going to be
set.  Management and the structures behind any such root to be allowed into
the legacy root would be of paramount importance.  Which again, raises the
issue of anarchy, do the other roots really intend to become a part of the
legacy root or do they wish to envelope it as the use of the term
"inclusive" implies.  I would say that in the case of at least one, anarchy
would be the appropriate term as their business plan would appear to
include the ambitious goal of outstripping the legacy root and making it
redundant.  All the roots, from what I observe, appear to be attempting to
wean users away from the legacy root and encouraging others to renounce the
legacy root and use their services.  All while using connections available
through the legacy root system.  If that is not a form of anarchy, perhaps
the definition needs to be rewritten.  Anarchy is often a good thing but it
does bring instability and while ever it exists that will be the case.
What do we all wish to see as the final result when the anarchy is finished
with and the contentions resolved?

What exactly are the intentions of the other root operators?  Do they wish
to be included in the legacy root system or do they wish to change the
whole structure and continue to deviate from the unique root concept?  If
so, what are the plans for managing such a system, what are the procedures
to be for controlling the inclusion of new roots and what limitations are
envisaged?  Who are going to be the authorities in such a system?  All
valid questions.

There have been calls for co-operation but a lot of what I see are cloaked
encouragements for submission to a new order that has not been explained or
defined.

|> In this case "Beware the diversionary tactic".

Yes, these come in many forms.  Often from those who cry out the loudest
about red herrings and diversionary tactics.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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