Re: [ga-roots] response

["Page Howe" <page@pagehowe.com>]

its always interetsing to read verisign's annual disclosure to the SEC- if
verisgn can admit this, why cant stuart lynn -this is the disclosure that
verisgn will rely on in its defense when if root is broken, or if ICANN
fails to survive.

from verisgn annual report ot the SEC

Our web presence services and registry services businesses also could be
harmed if a significant number of Internet service providers decided not to
route Internet communications to or from domain names registered by us or if
a significant number of Internet service providers decided to provide
routing to a set of domain name servers that did not point to our domain
name zone servers

so lets all agree its the ISP's, not ICANN who have the power to pick "the"
root.

In my opinion, as we said in our application for the .kids TLD to ICANN,
ICANN will only have the "power" over the Internet to the extent it meets
the needs of its consituencies.  i dont think it is.....

I applaud ICANN for staying together on a limited budget and trying to
please multiple aims and goals, but was the idea of a domain tax so gagable
to people that we didnt create an organization with the best and the
brightest from the start, and create a funded mechanism for receiving
constituency input from the start, and didnt create a line of communication
with registrants from the start.. and so on

page howe


----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Higgs" <simon@higgs.com>
To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] response


> At 06:57 PM 5/28/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >Response to Mueller's:
> > > Analysis of the Crispin Internet-draft.
> >
> >Unfortunately, Mueller apparently did not actually read the draft,
> >so it is hard to respond.  However, to correct a couple of inaccuracies:
> >
> > > The draft is based on two assumptions, both easily questioned.
> > >
> [...]
> >conclusion: ICANN *cannot* approve multiple roots.  Indeed, as a matter
> >of policy, ICANN must do everything it can to discourage them, which
> >implies that ICANN must never give any credence to TLDs that were
> >developed through alternate roots, since such acknowledgement would
> >simply encourage the proliferation of alternate roots and alternated
> >TLDs.
>
> What a load of hooey. Jon Postel of the IANA *ENCOURAGED* the first
> alt.root as a training ground for the Draft Postel applicants. It was a
> testbed/proof-of-concept for the inclusion of new TLDs into the IANA root.
> The alt.root was never supposed to survive past October 1996, when the
IANA
> applicants were supposed to be put into the IANA root. Problem solved, and
> the alt.root goes bye-bye.
>
> But, of course, the whole Internet Community got screwed by the IAHC, and
> those working on Draft Postel kept their root going. After Kashpureff blew
> himself out of the game at the Dec 1996 newdom BOF, Denninger formed eDNS
> on the now-censored iahc-discuss mailing list. Quite a consensus for the
> IAHC/gTLD-MOU crowd - to have an alt.root created in their midst as a
> direct result of the bogus gTLD-MOU. And what did the IAHC do when faced
> with this consensus? They ignored it and censored the web site mailing
list
> archive instead.
>
> So, of course, DoC steps in, tosses the gTLD-MOU in the trash where it
> belongs, and forms ICANN. In the meantime, the Internet community is
> getting really pissed off. As a result of the continued lack of access to
> the legacy root, more folk step up to the plate and form their own
> alt.roots. And it will continue ad infinitum until those behind the legacy
> root get a clue.
>
> Of course, the spineless, and gutless thing to do in this situation is
> "never give any credence to TLDs that were developed through alternate
> roots". Never admit your mistakes, and steamroller over the internet
> community as a grand dictator. I have to say that Kent's been totally
> consistent throughout, and the resulting damage is now in the $$$billions.
>
> One last thing. ICANN have a contract to fulfill the IANA function. Since
> IANA used the first alt.root as a test-bed, it's now ICANN's job to fix
> this mess. Routing around the ICANN root (a single-point-of-failure), the
> Internet community has already spoken.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Simon
>
> --
> DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.
>
> --
> 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