Re: Re[2]: [ga-roots] Names Council and Alternate Roots

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

It seems ICANN's #1 concern in regards to ccTLDs is the 1.4 million dollars
they were supposed to get from them. They wanted to keep them in the same
category as the Registrars, The Buisness, and the Intellectual property
constituencies and did not consider them any more important than those
constituencies when in fact the ccTLDs represent many countries rather than
a few business interests.

It seems I am not the only one who believes that due to the ccTLD
Constituency's recent announcement of withdrawing from the DNSO.

ICANN has also not expressed adequate concerns for gathering public input
and increasing public participation or concerns about individuals having a
constituency with voting power. They obviously have no concern for
cooperation with other root operators or even recognition that they exist.

Now that the ICANN BoD has shown clearly what they are NOT concerned about,
let's look at what they are concerned with.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Yes things cost money to implement. Yes ICANN needs funding to create more
viable and efficient methods of doing things. Yes ICANN needs to pay for
travel expenses and other expenses. yes ICANN needs money for Staff Members.

But not all Nonprofit Organizations have paid Board Members, so they do not
need to pay salaries for Board Members. There are qualified individuals who
would serve on that Board for free. Reimbursement of actual expenses is of
course acceptable within reason and laws of the State of California, since
they are a California Nonprofit Organization and not some imaginary
International Corporate Entity they made up.

ICANN is a root operator to make it plain and simple. Yes they got a
contract to run the legacy root through the USG, but it is still just one
root of many. How hard would everyone laugh if the Pacific Root or the ORSC
declared themselves the only true root and told everyone that they were
going to set all the rules. The thing is the operators of those roots don't
do that and have a better sense of the way the Internet should be operating
than ICANN does.

There is no need for any organization to "RUN" the Internet. As long as
colliders are not introduced and all the roots are included by the ISPs, the
consumers/users will run the internet. They will decide what is desirable
and what is not by their use of some tlds and their non-use of others. Let
the market decide. It will anyway.

You cannot believe that the market can be controlled by telling consumers
what they can and cannot have. The only marketing plan that is ever
successful is one that caters to what the consumers want. What sells is
continued and production increased. What doesn't sell is tossed to the side
with no mercy. It's called a free market. That is no where near what ICANN
represents or is proposing. They want a restricted market controlled by a
single entity whose President who states "We will do whatever we have to do
in order to get that funding back" in regards to the withdrawel of the ccTLD
Constituency.

That quote is significant because it is with that same attitude that policy
has been and will continue to be decided under ICANN. He who has the gold
makes the rules. Anyone who denies that is what exists under ICANN has their
head buried in the sand or hasn't examined how one gets to vote on issues
within the ICANN structure.

The gold comes from the consumers. The consumers have NO representation and
no votes because they do not pay their money directly to ICANN. They pay it
to those who do pay it directly to ICANN. ICANN gives them their voting
power with our money while denying us the same consideration.

It's time for the GA and the @Large both to step up and deliver this
message. What I saw at the Stockholm meeting thusfar has, while I personally
admire Danny for being the most forceful on the issues, has not delivered
the message clear enough or strong enough. If boycotts and demonstrations
have to be organized and implemented, so be it. If a barrage of press
releases have to be sent out so be it. If we must introduce the other roots
to the Internet ourselves, then so be it.

But the consumers have the power to make these changes. The market WILL
decide what policies are effective and what ones are not. The market will
decide what roots will be the most viable and which are not.

The excuses given at the Stockholm meeting as to why the bottom up consensus
hasn't been achieved are ridiculous. It was said that they must do whatever
it takes to get money, then they will use that money to create a bottom up
process. Likely? Not.


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "sergio.baccaglini" <sergio.ba@libero.it>
To: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>; "Simon Higgs"
<simon@higgs.com>
Cc: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga-roots] Names Council and Alternate Roots


> > They have no rights inside the ICANN controlled namespace, and ICANN
> > has no rights inside the alt.root namespace.  They are mutually
> > exclusive.
>
> I am not American. I do live in europe; but how do you ALL feel about the
> fact that all the namespaces are mutually exclusive but one of 'em has
> "some" sort of supervision on one of this namespace? Is it the "Official"
> one? If we are in a market,( it is at this point) , there has to be some
> kind of parity between the players; so that finally supervision has to be
> cut.
> In EU, for eg, national states can't provide any fundings or supports to a
> company if this means an adavntage with regard to the rest of competitors
in
> EU.
>
> I don't know if I support alt-roots. I use them, but i most care of
> stability and I don't welcome at all any collision.
> I'd only like to see some clarity about the matter, and on my opinion
ICANN
> could do much better at this regard. (see the Lynn's draft Paper)
>
>
> --
> 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