RE: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

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

Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
>The problem is that the IAB and the IETF have forgotten this and are
>treating, long established, arbitrary convenience limits as if they were
>laws of physics (they aren't). When that fact is pointed out to them, they
>shout it down with religious zeal and the opposition is so strenously
>harassed that they are encouraged to leave participation in the IETF. IOW,
>it is a very hostile environment.

You mean that they may answer something like:
"I sure hope that this is a sign of advanced senility on your part. Because, 
I really wouldn't like to think that you were that dishonest."

>
>Given this environment and those conditions, it is small wonder that the 
>PSO
>is exclusively populated with those of similar mind-set. They've
>brain-washed each other that way. To then hold up that body as a true
>representation of all the experts in the world, in that speciality, is, to
>say the least, absurd and disingenuous in the extreme.

I think that a reality check is needed.
The PSO is made of the international standardization organizations that are 
relevant for the internet. If you think that some is missing, please 
indicate which one and why it should be included.
The IETF, whatever the judgement single individuals may have on it, is by 
far the largest and more important of those, and the fact is that it is 
universally recognized as "the authority" in terms of Internet Standards.
I don't know any manufacturing company that will manufacture a product 
intended for universal use in the Internet for which the IETF has said: 
"that approach does not work", nor I know any operator that has implemented 
a service under the same circumstance. Why should ICANN behave differently? 
Whether the IAB's statement is political or not, is irrelevant, it is 
nevertheless the *official* statement of the Internet Engineering Community, 
and it is wise for ICANN to comply with it.


I will also answer below other comments on the same thread, to avoid 
exceeding posting limit.

Jefsey:
>
>Don't you feel time to time unatease with your quiet stuborn positions?
>If I summarize what you say:
>"we met together with people who are not concerned who said they are not
>concerned, so I think the AmerICANN should not be concerned by the market
>demand. The proof is that I said them not to feel concerned and don't worry
>I made clear that I would not quote the people who feel concerned" .
>
>Is that not correct?

Talking about stubborn.....
No, that is not correct.
I only made clear that I was speaking as an individual and I had no mandate 
whatsoever to speak for the GA. Incidentally, if anybody wanted to present a 
different view, he/she should have submitted it.
The meeting was open, nobody has been shut up. Incidentally, can somebody 
point out at which PSO meeting anybody has been refused access or has been 
shut up? (or beaten up with clubs, or other amenities)
If no such case can be brought up, can we dismiss the sentence below from 
Roeland in answer to me as being "not true":
> > This item has also been debated at the PSO General Assembly
> > some 10 days ago, and there has not been one single voice in favour of
> > multiple roots.
>
>That is because those holding that position are not allowed to speak there
>or are actively attacked, with ad hominems, when they do.
>


Kristy:
>ICANN must hold to it's written agenda which includes representing public 
>view.
>
>As far as the IETF's credibility:  we all surely recognize it has been
>suspect for a few years now.
>

Indeed ICANN must take into account public view.
May I respectfully ask what public view has voiced a different consensus? 
Without doubt, *some* have a different opinion, *some* "recognize that IETF 
has been suspect for years now", but they are definitively not *all*. Not 
even a consensus, not even a majority.
If the IETF was not credible for the majority, the majority would have 
created alternative fora. If the "market" would have had other needs, it 
would have found a solution. Which leads me to the last comment.

Bill Lowell:
>A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
>doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.  However, the
>Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
>or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
>users.  It is those users who have the right and obligation to decide
>what kind of Internet that will be, the single, "authoritative" (I just
>love that audacious presumption!) root or multiple roots.
>
>And most of my questions were not answered at all.
>

Correct.
Those users will have to decide whether they will use ICANN's single root or 
any other of the multiple existing choices.
Nobody is questioning the right of the users to choose: future will tell 
whether ICANN was right or wrong in taking the advice of its body of 
experts.

About failure to answer "most of your questions", I am sorry, but I never 
intended to. I only replied to your question:
> > >What is the basis for the statement "the concept
> > >of multiple roots clearly leads to the potential for
> > >conflicting top level domains and consequent
> > >Internet instability,"
saying that the basis was the pronouncement of the IAB.

Best regards
Roberto


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

--
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