[ga] starving the DNSO (or the iCANN?) to death - why?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Hi! all,
are we not mad?

How can reasonable people conceive that a department of a corporation with 
a reasonable income should live from charities and donations to be 
independent from its own organization and deliver it a better service? and 
that to improve its professional capacity such a department should reduce 
its work force when it does not contribute enough - out of its own pocket - 
to its production cost.

Apart from Songbird Inc., please show me a single business consulting firm 
in the world advising his clients along such lines.



Chuck, I don't see the Interest of your position for VeriSign. Should it be 
picked by the press, you would be negatively be labeled as the ugly 
capitalist draining profits from starving children, or the big bad company 
buying votes at your partners management?

I certainly appreciate you gallantly defend your position. But let me ask a 
few questions?
- why are you the only one? Why are ccTLDs, TL, BC not defending their votes?
- how can you pretend that if the DNSO gets external funding you will not 
take that as a reason to pretend it biased?
- don't you find disturbing that you proposed occasionally monies to the 
DNSO during an important negotiation where you wanted its silence and now 
you withhold that money after the NC negative vote?
- how can you pretend the iCANN is democratic an fair now it is plain that 
BoD seats are money dependent. YJ Park will never make it to the Board now. 
If the DoC approve Plan B, it will mean they enter into an indirect sales 
of influences business. I am not sure hey like it.

Let be realist and tell the truth. The iCANN is delegated USG 
responsibilities in the areas of consensus. Your interests - as TMs and 
some parts of BC and may be - we discover it through the vote - ccTLDs are 
in competition with consensus. (If you disagree here there is an easy way 
to turn me wrong: tell us what you, main BCs and TMs bring to the Internet 
Community they could not have for less?)

Your strategy is pretty plain. "You" said the consensus areas are defined 
by 2/3 votes of 19 people elected/self appointed by "your" interests. So 
when there is obviously not a consensus (when we the people oppose your 
interests) 13 people decides we are not representative, we are dreamers, we 
are activists, we are biased, ... but actually there is a consensus. So 
this is your territory.

Let be clear: Plan B story shown the world that there is no consensus about 
VeriSign. ".biz" shows the world there is no consensus about TLDs. New.net 
and MultiBind show the world there is no consensus about DNS. Should people 
not be diverted from IPv6 by the DNSO stories, disputes would show there is 
no consensus about ASO issues... This means that the iCANN would only be 
left with ASO to manage.

Your response is simple: you over complexify the issues so USG is afraid of 
retaking over: - Plan B, gTLD model huge amount of text exchanges & 
contracts over 100 characters to enter in an ASCII file, WIPO long 
documents and process, UDREP complexity, etc.. This is always the same 
response. But the market response is also always the same: when a way 
becomes too complex, it chooses another way. The whole Telecom world was 
busy for years with Teletex, then with ISO Model, then with X.400/X500, now 
with iCANN, next with iCANN/VeriSign divestiture....

Either the DoC puts an end to this. Or the world community starts an anti 
trust action against you next year, or MS or a cute guy modifies the Window 
Socket allowing alternative choices for DNS information access, or 
viruscoms put an end to the .com image, or you become more aware of your 
long term interests and you make a smart turn, or anything else happens, 
but the world Internet community will not accept that situation for a long, 
killing the consensus. As Chinese already did...

So let me know where is the interest of your position for your company? 
Your business plan would look far better - and you quite told  it - in 
forgetting the "American Joke", fostering some competition yourself - 
hosting independent TLDs as you host the RIPE - proposing all the legacy 
TLDs to allocate 3c per DNs to the DNSO and to the ASO  (or do you want the 
Inclusive TLDs to take the lead ;-) ?) so they grow a more user oriented 
iCANN, helping develop the DNSSEC under GNU licence, starting new DNS 
services ...


... BTW there is one reason why I would accept your position. It would be 
if you do not believe/want the iCANN to survive and you don't want to help 
it stay any longer in subsidizing its components. Or you want a collapse 
for a rebuild?

Jefsey











You see that the 13 people threshold is endangered by the @large and by 
some DNSO reps. So the burying @large study and the DNSO financial strangling.

--
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