Re: [ga] Roberto: please let us seriously work together and stop psalming

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Roberto,

On 01:44 04/06/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>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?

The alt-root gang is a fancy of yours. There is a real world with various 
positions and understandings. I known what Pacific Root, what ORSC root is, 
what IRON, what CINICS are, etc... but I do not know any "alt.root", the 
word "alternative" being a word I personally find hurting unless applied to 
every one. There are - as everywhere - alternative commercial propositions: 
this is life and competition. By historical order - I am in this for 30 
years now - the iCANN proposition is one of the latest alternative 
proposed. And one of the most exclusive ones.

The inclusive, open, etc..., any word you want to give it, is the result of 
a technical logical analysis open to all and you are more than welcome to 
share. Simon Higgs produced an IETF document of quality I object on some 
points as unclear to me and not systematic enough IMHO. Instead of psalming 
the same irrelevant things, why not to work seriously on the matter. Your 
comments and experience would be quite appreciated. Otherwise once the DNS 
Name Space theory and consequent management rules have taken full shape, do 
not come and say one did not take your point of view into consideration.

I certainly accept that Danny's denial of a serious dialog on the matter 
does not help: may I recall you that I documented many reasons - and not 
only the so called alt.root which are actually external to the iCANN - for 
the GA to work through a dedicated ML on a document proposing the NC the 
creation of a formal WG on the Inclusive Name Space Management. Would we 
have followed that method we would not have today the opposition between 
CEO and NC, we would have clarified many issues and saved a lot of time in 
Stockholm due to the still ill understood the similarities of the .biz, 
New.net, IDN, ccTLDs questions. They all belong to a missing consistent 
technical, legal, political, commercial Name Space strategy by the iCANN.

 From then on, let propose a reshape of the RFC 1591 taking also into 
account the IP addressing plan - as any discussion concerning the Name 
Space level not taking into account the underlying Address level is of no 
interest. And let us know/maybe help where the world goes.

Please document your technical objections. My pleasure to copy you my mail 
to Simon Higgs if you wish. Let become serious about this issue.

Jefsey


PS. world@wide has the DN rfc1591.org. Why not to use it to host a full 
joint review with agenda, working frame and method, documented positions 
links to support discussions, etc.... and a firm initial commitment from 
anyone participating that we work ahead not dispute back and that every 
position will be respected and investigated without arrogance and with 
logic. You know far better than me about Chairing such a work: why would 
you not take it with Harald (I cannot be more open minded)?



--
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