Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Marc,
let face it: the ICANN is the Internet Dominance. For some mysterious 
reasons the real policy is not discussed but carried. Some may think that 
some objectives are:

- use the 11 Sept. to push for DNS security - i.e. to declare inclusive 
roots terrorist - to repatriate  root machines on US soil - to develop a 
secondary DNS management system by SAIC under a new directory system and 
White House control. VeriSign has M$ 200 planned for that and wants to make 
believe it is of common interest - but when proposed to get the result 
under GNU licence ... Chuck responded "what is GNU?" :-)

- use the security issue to delay the @large and the .org issue until it is 
necessary to decide it in ten days. You may remember that Vint committed to 
me on this list that appropriate changes will be made to the ByLaws for the 
current @large Directors to stay seated until replaced. So don't be afraid 
that the 2002 general meeting could decide of the end of the @large and of 
the take over of the .org by an ICANN non-profit, no-member, Louis Touton 
chaired and Joe Sims advised affiliate.

- use the whole disputes this may lead as a way to delay many things until 
the huge ".com" and ".info" gTLDs make the small ".net" a nice compensation 
for poor Microsoft waiting for so long to get a TLD when Verisign is to 
release it according to Plan B. Microsoft having in the meanwhile 
contributed to the free world security effort in banning free root access 
from XP.

I am certainly biased. I just looked at the http://www.projectliberty.org 
site. I do not know about it yet and if they will accept non-profit 
organizations. I just have the feeling that the "people for the people" is 
somewhat outdated right now. But I have the strange feeling too that the 
people may  also occasionally the "market" and that all these "money 
makers" tend to forget about it?

Jefsey

On 23:16 27/09/01, Marc Schneiders said:
>Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
>in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
>following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
>probably be postponed.
>
>I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
>the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
>here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
>think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
>with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
>measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
>Virginia into other parts of the world anyway.
>
>Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
>something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
>to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
>.ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.
>
>Please, tell me why I am mistaken!
>
>--
>Marc@Schneiders.ORG
>
>--
>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

--
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