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

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

This can't be right, the BC is stating that there is supposed to be a
democratically run, by stakeholders, organization.  Is the BC or the rest of ICANN
hallucinating?

We need to be real careful in our next elections within ICANN because beside a
very few, most elected members are not at all doing what they are supposed to do.
Let me make sure no one misunderstands my position here - with little exception,
ICANN officials are committing fraud.

" Until recently, the protocols,
 numbers and names that make
 the internet work were undertaken
 by United States Government
 contract. It was then decided that
 assignment of internet names,
 addresses and protocols should
 be overseen democratically by
 stakeholders in a new not-for-profit
 organisation.

 This led to the formation of the
 Internet Corporation for Assigned
 Names and Numbers or ICANN.


 The ICANN Board draws on
 research and advice from three
 permanent supporting
 organizations:"



Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Danny,
> as you know the document you quote does not represent the DNSO/BC positions
> as it has been published in violation of every DNSO/BC rules.(
> http://www.bizconst.org/bcmain.htm )..
>
> A reconsideration procedure is pending.
>
> But you are right the agenda is to take advantage from the 11th Sept.
> Incident to declare inclusive roots terrorists, probably @large activists
> too. The GAC will also be pushed towards a better control of the ccTLDs.
>
> This is sad and much unprofessional. Most of the "single authoritative
> root" integrists never read a DNS file and never the less "commit"
> themselves, their county and the world to the most stupid risk out of their
> pure and only pride to know better what they ignore.  .
>
> The MdR meetings will be quite boring (talking during three days about the
> ICANN as the single point of BS (bad security) of the Internet). Under that
> circumstances ....
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 22:33 29/09/01, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
> >Rick Wesson wrote:
> >
> >"Marilyn, please define the context you wish to discuss security, and
> >stability.  They are great words to be thrown around and I encourage real
> >discussion on just what you mean by stability."
> >
> >On behalf of the Business Constituency, Marilyn drafted the August 2001
> >Position Paper on Alternate Roots wherein she writes:
> >
> >"The BC notes that confusion between naming schemes within the DNS and roots
> >operated outside of the DNS, pose a severe threat to the stability of the
> >Internet and it's ability to ensure reliability and integrity in supporting
> >global electronic commerce and communications.  Any threat to the stable and
> >reliable resolvability with uniqueness in the naming system of the Internet
> >will cause user confusion, raise new opportunities for consumer fraud, and
> >cause potential harm to all users of the infrastructure worldwide.  Alternate
> >roots, and mechanisms which create confusion related to the authoritative
> >nature of the root with its assurance of global uniqueness, may represent
> >destabilizing factors to the global uniqueness of the Internet's naming
> >system."
> >
> >It would be fair to ask if Marilyn is now invoking "security and stability"
> >as a thinly veiled means to once more attack the alternate roots.
> >--
> >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

--
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