RE: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
|> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 1:57 AM
|> 
|> Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:38:49 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > Those whom may wonder at the lack of my usual optimism may see
|> > http://www.mhsc.com/news.htm.
|> 
|> None of which has anything to do with your feelings about the DNSO
|> which predate the 11th.  My point is that your anti-DNSO anti-ICANN
|> predisposition makes the lack of leadership in the GA something that
|> is really not that important to you, and hence why you feel it is
|> a non-issue.

Wherever did you get the idea that I was anti-anything ICANN? For DNS
registries, there is a serious need for a clearing-house WRT DNS names and
IP addresses. Stef convinced me of that long ago. However, it needs to be
very light-weight and very efficient and, according to the green/white
papers, IFWP, and the DOC MoU, needs to have a reasonable consensus support.


The ICANN are managing to turn it into a very much top-down bureaucracy that
is afraid of consensus. They seek a type of authoritarian control over the
Internet and thereby, all network communications. Please, don't mind if I
object to that. The evidence of this consensus fear is found everywhere,
from the end-days of the IFWP to the present. 

There are a few control-freaks/social-bureaucrats that have managed to
capture the ICANN process (regardless of $motivation$). Jefsey will
recognize my reference to the "Old Republic" when I state my aversion to
that circumstance. The first thing to get sacrificed in such an institution
are individual rights, followed closely by small business. Bureaucracy likes
bureaucracy and there is almost nothing more bureaucratic than a large
corporation, outside of halls of government. That is why governments like
large corporations.

That said, in the days when the DJ Industrials can drop 1300 points in one
week, most folks (including moi) are worried about other things, like making
the next month's  burn-rate. In such circumstance, most will reduce time
spent on non-revenue projects and concentrate more efforts on
revenue-producing projects. This is natural. Even if ICANN becomes
revenue-effecting, it will be some time in the nebulous future. Meanwhile,
the alligators are in the pool now!

What upsets me the most is that ICANN, while setup to be a technical
co-ordination body, has thouroughly moved to being an Intellectual Property
enforcement house, in violation of many long-standing International
treaties, understandings, and agreements. If non-US governments seem to get
upset with that, I can't blame them. In that process, we seem to be losing
the pure technical co-ordination functions that ICANN was created to do. Can
we say "loss of scope"? Yet, we have some serious mission creep in the IP
area.


--
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