Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Patrick,

>
>(1)    The Names Council is looking to save money.  That's what they say,
>anyway.  I see that as quite false.  In fact, yesterday's webcast made in
>quite clear they had a "slush fund" which they could draw on if needed.  
>And
>ICANN should fund them, anyway.
>
>BTW Was I mistaken or did Verisign just cough up $100,000?  What was that
>for?  And what did Verisign get in return?  Do you believe pure generosity
>of spirit !!!
>

No, I don't.
But the $100K story goes back several months (a year?). They proposed to 
pony up the amount if there were matching funds from other sources.
Believe it or not, NSi has been supportive of bottom-up process since the 
beginning (maybe for their reasons, we can argue forever). Remember the 
Paris Draft, remember the attempts to empower the GA, and so on.
To let suspicions float serves no useful purpose.

>(2)    There is censorship afoot.  Purportedly because of (1) the Names
>Council wants to close down some lists.  They already suggested closing
>GA-FULL and I reckon that's just being held over until after the Sotckholm
>conference.  The one sublist that was really taking off was GA-ROOTS.  So
>naturally naysayers attacked it -- a good excuse.
>


Two things I don't understand.
First - are you really sure you want to talk about censorship?
Second - about the GA-full, there has been a discussion in the NC early May, 
followed by a clarification on the GA list with Philip. Then this issue has 
been re-hashed by re-quoting the early May NC minutes (conveniently 
forgetting that there has been further development on the GA list in 
between). Mmmmh?!?

>(3)    Alternate Roots !!  Probably the most critical issue to face ICANN 
>in
>the world today.  In fact, they have the potential to completely undermine
>the whole structure.  And I really don't care if it is having *right now* 
>--
>it certainly COULD and I think WILL.  But the argument is that the subject
>is *out of scope*.   Perhaps a standard line from ICANN staff.
>
>But it's a clever trick.  It means that the Names Council CAN and almost
>certainly WILL close down the GA-ROOTS mailing list at any time they like.
>

Again?! Do you *really* think that ga-roots list is a concern to NC (or 
ICANN)? BTW, you mix up NC and ICANN. NC has declared the subject "out of 
scope" (the motivation was summarized by Milton today for whom did not hear 
the NC yesterday), while ICANN, in the person of its CEO, has produced a 
document on it (implicitely stating that it is *within scope*).


>(4)     The ICANN CEO, Stuart Lynn came up with his own policy statement.
>This received mixed reviews but they were mostly negative.  Apart from the
>content, I think he made several mistakes in his approach.  But he's new to
>the job and doesn't quite understand all the dynamics yet.  My guess is 
>that
>Kent Crispin wrote the statement and Stuart appended his name afterwards.


The statement does not have the style of Kent, and Stuart is not the kind of 
person to "append" his name anywhere.
But I understand that it sounds nice to think so.


>Whatever the truth the ICANN view is quite clear.  Wrong but clear ;-)
>


The ICANN view is not only clear, but simple, and is completely in line with 
years of proclaims by the alt-root community. The alt-roots have been 
publicized for years, appealing to the right to compete against the IANA 
"monopoly".
But that was when the strategy of blocking any extension of the IANA root 
has been successful (BTW, delegitimize IANA and force the creation of a 
different body was simply another step of the roadblocking strategy). Now 
that the wind has changed, and that IANA-ICANN is about to extend the root, 
the old theory of "healthy competition" does not fit anymore, and here we go 
to plan B: a "virtual root" which is exactly what was considered evil until 
one year ago, i.e. industry self-regulation.

So, I agree that ICANN's view is clear. And moreover, it did not change in 
time.
Can the same be said about alt-root?


>If he had any sense, he would have arranged for ICANN to pay my airfare to
>Stockholm and then sat down with the General Assembly, the SOs and all to
>thrash out a "bottom-up" statement.  Instead he chose to take the ICANN
>staff approach -- denial, dismissal and dogma.
>
>Putting the lack of funding together with the "out of scope" argument, and
>lack of support from ICANN, it is inevitable that the Names Council will
>move to scrap the GA-ROOTS mailing list as soon as it can be arranged.
>
>And that will be sooner than you think.  Maybe Monday.


I would not count on it.
But again, I agree that it makes a nice effect to say it.


>
>One more point.  It has been argued that my intention in setting up a Roots
>mailing list was to "capture" the debate.  More FUD.  Moving the debate to 
>a
>separate list just "allowed" the debate room to breathe.  It also sheltered
>the main GA list from a lot of hostility.
>
>Yes, they will ban GA-ROOTS.  It's a certainty.  But neither ICANN or the
>Names Council can stop the debate on the subject of Alternate Roots.  All
>that will happen it that it will continue to dominate the discussion on the
>main GA mailing list.  Where it was before.  A very untidy resolution.
>
>But the debate will continue where it matters.  Out there in the DNS !!
>


Amen.

Roberto
(wondering to whom "dogma" applies)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

--
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