<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group
At 02:47 PM 4/13/2001, JandL wrote:
>the debate in the past has been among a small group of people, did not
>take into consideration aspects beyond the WWW and did not inlcude the
>public.
The debate goes back roughly 6 years. It has been an entirely open debate
for all of that time. The range of people involved during that time has,
of course, expanded, but it was never closed. Some people have shown up
for the discussion only recently, but that does not mean the topic was
limited or that participation was closed.
Further, the topic has been the subject of constant media reporting, both
industry and mass media, for at least 4 years.
The implication that we are faced with is that anyone may show up at
anytime, re-open a topic, and thereby cause infinite delay. This does not
make for an effective operation, folks.
And, by the way, it was never limited to the world wide web. If you do a
little research about my own technical background you might appreciate why
I find your perception slightly amusing...
>did not go anywhere because it was almost totally political and not
>technical.
Again you simply are incorrect. The discussion did become highly
politicized, but it has primarily been a matter of technical concern.
That is what prompted the Internet Architecture Board to issue its
technical summary on the matter. Please review: RFC2826, "IAB Technical
Comment on the Unique DNS Root".
>Discussions rarely took into account the entire Internet.
You are wrong.
>The public was not informed because it meant little to the average user
>due to ignorance of the subject matter.
The public has been constantly "informed" for at least the last 4 years,
though really longer. And the public has been able to participate for all
of that time and longer.
>To continue to insist that a situation does not exist just because you
>don't want it to exist is foolhardy. The issue is duplication in the DNS.
No. The issue is duplications of domain name systems, not duplication
within one. The independent folks have been working out of their own,
independent name space. They are free to continue to do so.
>It is serious and more so now that ICANN has determined that it doesn't
>matter;
That determination has been made more than once, and not recently. Long
ago the IAHC had four different lawyers sitting in the room when the
question of .web came up, during discussions about proposed new gTLDs, and
all were unanimous -- as was the rest of the non-lawyer IAHC -- that the
independent .web effort had nothing at all to do with the IANA namespace
that we were working for.
>This is so wrong. You just go ahead and and foster the notion that
>nothing will be amiss when email goes haywire, nameservers are a
>mess and the internet stabiltiy is affected.
You are doing an excellent job of describing the reason it was, and
remains, rather irresponsible of those independent namespace administrators
to have misrepresented their activities. Thank you.
>Delaying tactic? We've been screaming about duplication since ICANN began
>discussing the possibility of accepting applications for duplicates. The
>GA may not have picked up the discussion, but it has been there.
In fact not just the GA or the ICANN board has ignored it. Almost everyone
except a few folks -- not suprisingly most are involved in independent
namespace administration -- have ignored it.
>You insist that working outside the ICANN framework means just that and
>that ICANN should ignore "independents." Fine. Let's see the result.
Does MacDonalds have to "coordinate" with Burger King before introducing a
new product?
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|