[ga] letter to Joe Sims
Dear Mr. Joe Sims, The response from Mr. Levee to New.net calls for two responses. One negative to the letter itself. One as an invitation to progress further together. Commenting Mr. Levee's letter The letter says: " Lawyers' demands are not likely to be appealing to the Internet community, which prides itself on free and open debate on issues of significant public importance. Because ICANN believes in full public discussion of important issues, we will post your letter, and this response, on ICANN's website. " Out of its context that response would be sensible. In response to a demand for a minimum courtesy I feel it extremely arrogant. But the leading sentence: " As the consensus-based entity formed by the Internet community to coordinate the operation of the Internet's authoritative Domain Name System (DNS) in the public interest, " is quite surprising. The AmerICANN had certainly been formed by an Internet community: I suppose I do not belong to that community since such a consensus does not reflect - by far - my concepts of the nets. So that community was not the Global Internet Community - of which I suppose I am a Member for some time. Then I discover that it was created to "coordinate the operations", in an other document it will be to "coordinate the policy" (very interesting how a lawyer does understand service support), of the "authoritative" Domain Name System (DNS). Now the whole DNS becomes authoritative. Great! You are not authoritative about Internet and DNS but you are about using great words with authority.... I suggest you use "the authoritative Internet coordinator" for a while, then the "the Authoritative Coordinator" and eventually "the Great Authoritative Coordinator" or GAC. It sounds more professional than "Big Brother". The most offending part is actually "in the public interest". Let suppose the Internet community was the Global Internet Community (the GIC not the GIP - http://gip.org ), naming its Members - i.e. all of us, the community - the "public" ... I resent that. Mr. Levee, Mr. Sims the Internet is for you a source of revenues. For many of us and for 25 years it is a source of expenses and of intellectual and hard work given to the community or invested for a legitimate return. Certainly far more than the "less than $ 10.000" the AmerICANN purchased the IANA functions. For several years now - with a brilliant professionalism, and this is the most worrying problem for the Community - you have lead a fossilization of the Internet and made all of us wasting our money, time, expected returns and most of all delaying technical accomplishments for the whole world. There is no more real innovation on the Internet. Your legal "coordination" has blocked the momentum. Hence the users' progressive disinterest and the economical impact on the whole planet. There is no dispute about it, and I suppose you will accept it: Joe Sims is the key person behind Louis Touton and the Staff. We may disagree with New.net, but they are innovative, you are not. "it is not technically feasible for there to be more than one root in the public DNS." Is it not a nice and cute response to a person who is actually operating another root? This reminds me once I called Air France because my daughter (8 years old) had disappeared from an Air France flight and after six hours no one was able to tell where she was. They rebuked me and were keeping responding "we never lost a kid" while I was saying "you lost mine: what are you going to do about it". I must say that whenever I read such inept responses by AMerICANN's Staff, I remember my anger of that day... My opinion being "truthful, accurate, and honestly held", I hope you will not object to it: this kind of dumb response does not serve at all the interests of the Global Internet Community. " Lawyers' demands are not likely to be appealing to the Internet community, which prides itself on free and open debate on issues of significant public importance. " Your lawyer's demand is not appealing on me and on many others of the Global Internet Community as we pride ourselves on free and open debate on issues of significant importance. You will tell me you share your opinion with the AmerICANN Staff. Will you tell me too that my opinion is no part of the consensus? Actually, we may disagree on important issues, but I suppose that most of us agree on mutual respect and politeness. There is also a difference: you are paid to express yours and I am not, and that we are the ones who pay you. Someone quoted President Reagan "I paid for that microphone". I am afraid that the microphone we paid for does not work. Now let progress together Gentlemen from New.net, we may disagree with you. Be sure we will stay courteous and you are welcome here at the GA. But I would wish you to be more innovative so Joe Sims might agree with you. This is the challenge. For years and years we have fueled a dispute between bottom-uppers and top-downers. Let try a new concept all of us know but the Net makes possible: "me/we". The family, the community, the subsidiarity concept: my authority respecting others' ones. We are bound to live together and to share the same resources. Instead of saying "I am the single authoritative root" which technically means you are God or nothing, or "be polite, please", let try to understand how the nets really works and to figure out the progresses that each of us may propose towards a consensus. First thing we must dig into (and improve) a few basic concepts. The DNS is a conceptual plan like the geographical or the postal addressing plan. The authority - in term of decision - is me on my machine. The authority - in term of reference - is who ever I entrusted my information to. A domain name is a domain name: when I name my 1265 12street-W house "little nest" I give it a domain name. The Bind system is a way to use the DNS system. There are different systems doing that. What they have in common is not to be a data base. The complexity of the DNS and Bind to new comers is that it is described as a "hierarchical database", so they try to understand it as that. A complex task since it is a "progressive filter". But to understand that you must forget about the DNS religious war and the top-down and bottom-up dispute. There is no users, providers, etc... as such. The Internet is a consensus of the participating parties to use the TCP/IP protocol set and the IP addressing plan associated to the DNS. There are only Internet Consensus Participants. Every of them are users, content providers, ... when I send a mail I add to the content. The Participants as a whole are by nature the Global Internet Community. Participants are authoritative so there is a TLD when one Participant says there is one. There is a TLD Manager when someone one says "I will assume the Job!". Does that mean that the TLD Manager is serious and must be accepted at face value? No! But the participant, yes! Remember how it worked in the pre-Joe Sims days. So there is a real work ahead to make simple things like that accepted by everyone. And turned into documentation. In a best general interest protection scheme (please not the "public interest"). This may contradict a long philosophy of Joe Sims. I do not know; but better to hurt someone's position than to un into the major problems ahead. TLD squatting is a reality. The AmerICANN disinterest is from lack of power. It should be replaced by a positive policy. I am a developing root administrator: not to compete with the AmerICANN, but because Mike Roberts forced me to take that long and costly path to obtain the service I need. In blocking the necessary innovation and then in blocking the proposition to foster that innovation. Let agree together about a policy regarding TLD squatting. We did it among several open roots, why not with the ICANN and New.net? We are all concerned and the trustees of the future true TLD Managers. Most of all, the network needs innovation. AmerICANN blocks it. Let have it to foster innovation. First let have you devise an IP protection scheme (I think it is your field) making an innovation presented to the AmerICANN or another similar forum protected like by a patent or at least a common non circumvention obligation. So we may [be] propose[d] new ideas and new concepts. Let have Jones Day offering a very good deal: if they work for the legal field of an innovation, they will get it as a customer. Most of the network changes will call for a lot of e-legal internet and AmerICANN paper-work. Let not have this blocking improvements of interest to the entire world. Faithfully yours. Jefsey Morfin |