Re: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

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

Jefsey,

I had to read and reread your comments- no, not your english your techlish!

And now I am convinced that techlishians do not understand polywogian.

Both you and Jim either need to get a job in a sound bite studio or start puttin
matters
into a context.  Read Wittgenstein if you are confused.  Contextual analysis of
what is Justice.

Come on pulling one phrase out of context for the basis of a point is sheer Peter
Jenkinsonian.

You are both above that and us dotcommoners deserve more.

Get down and get wit us or get out and get agin us.  The point is anyone can speak
in a way to be confused and misunderstood; do you want to?

Peace
Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Jim,
> I certainly appreciate your mail. But please be fair with Lynn (I enough
> dispute him to be able to say that!). He also says:
>
> <quote>
> Q: Would you consider usefulness of new TLDs before adding them?
> A: If there is no demanding, pressing consumer need that's perceived, then
> why risk destabilization in other areas?
> </quote>
>
> The point is that Lynn endangers most probably far more the stability and
> the security of the Internet than he thinks. Let assume he is honest (for
> discussion sake you can give me that point for a minute): how would he know
> that there is a "demanding, pressing consumer need" when he takes every
> step to kill the possibility of that demand and for him to learn about it.
>
> In its ICP-3 he talks about "experimental" TLDs but do not give any frame
> to them as we did with the Root and TLD Best Practices (
> http://boroon.com/pdf_e/rcdc-05-E-RTBP-RootTLDBestPractices.pdf ).
>
> The point is that "alt(sic)root" are no solution to the TLD, security and
> stability needs. They are just a patch to the ICANN oddities. The solution
> is in a review of our /usage/ of the DNS.
>
> DNS is three things:
>
> - a continuation of the international data network naming plan initiated by
> the UN in the 50s,  stabilized in its present semantic in 1978 by Tymnet
> International, US IRCs and foreign monopolies of the time. It is
> progressively managed by the IANA alone since the end of the 80s.
>
> - an IP address resolution system designed by Mokapertis in 1982 which can
> be used for many other things. Some see it as a data base, some as an
> information system. I see it more as a search protocol. These are the
> star/meshed/distributed network cultures we meet everywhere which make so
> many people to misunderstand while they are in agreement :-)
>
> - a default service proposed by many sources: USG servers, intranet
> systems, ccTLDs, alt(sic)roots and ISPs.
>
> The naming plan is misunderstood. The program is fine. The usage is
> outdated. When Mokapertis defined the Internet restriction of the naming
> plan the Internet was an /interconnected/ network as several others (the
> first use of "com" I know of was in 1980 by Mr. Boutmy's team in Heindhoven
> for the Philips international corporate network). Today the Internet has
> become the World's /interconnecting/ system. A serious change.
>
> Lynn is perfectly right about security, cybersquatting etc... But what he
> does not see is that he is creating the tension and leading to the break.
> No one actually needs the ICANN and the USG root on the long range, but
> having them would be better for everyone. Lynn's task should be to
> accompany and even lead the transition, so the ICANN stays the core of the
> system. In blocking a natural development and in competing withe the real
> networks forces, he leads to the clash he wants to avoid.
>
> What will probably happen is that the NTIA people will understand the
> technical fragility of the current system. Find the obvious proper solution
> and will impose it for GovNet to Microsoft. This may be a temporary blow
> for Verisign and Microsoft (specially if we wait for a long as they
> stabilize their marketing on an outdated approach). But I am sure that
> these corporations will easily find the way to develop new strategies to
> take advantage from it - actually I hope they only work on the basis that
> ICANN is only a contingency plan, or they would be fool what they are not.
>
> When the solution is imposed by the NTIA for security reasons in every USG
> Windows system, the whole world will ask Microsoft the security solution
> devised by the USG for GovNet. If the ICANN helped that to occur it will be
> the core of he world, Verisign will organize with MicroSoft and Sun and
> many new US and international interests.
>
> Otherwise there will be some destabilization until the Internet stabilized
> again as cooperated from many places in the world and the US Internet
> industry is eventually stuck in an anti-trust obsolete case against
> VeriSign and ICANN (cf. Plan B DoJ positions).
>
> Jefsey
>
> At 05:05 21/11/01, Jim Fleming wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Eric Dierker" <eric@hi-tek.com>
> >To: <ga@dnso.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:08 PM
> >Subject: [ga] Motion and request for amendment
> >
> >
> > > I Eric Dierker, being a member of the GA of ICANN, hereby make motion
> > > that the GA agree, reach consensus and evidence by a vote, formal or
> > > otherwise, that the BC (business constituency within the DNSO of ICANN)
> > > is currently acting in direct contravention of the Green Papers the
> > > White Papers, all and amended contracts with the DoC (department of
> > > commerce of the US gov).....
> >
> >In my opinion, you might want to study the long history that lead up
> >to the founding of ICANN. You stated at the ICANN meeting that you
> >became an Internet user 18 months ago. That may make it hard to emcompass
> >the past 7 years of history and the years before 1995, where the small
> >circle of Jon Postel's cronies systematically controlled the allocation of
> >basic Internet resources through their combined government and educational
> >institution network, aided by a small group of corporate supporters who
> >realized they could make a lot of money, for doing very little, by supporting
> >that regime. That worked as long as the general public was given the
> >"mushroom treatment" (i.e. kept in the dark and fed manure).
> >
> >Here is a sample....
> >http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html
> >"...ICANN's Lynn: No new domains anytime soon..."
> >....
> >Q: If there are no technical impediments to adding top-level domains,
> >would that essentially obligate you to do so?
> >A: No. We do have other responsibilities in creating a level playing field
> >and a fair place for competition.
> >-----------------
> >
> >It all boils down to fairness.
> >Which list do you think is more fair ?
> >The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
> >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> >or
> >The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
> >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> >
> >People are now prepared to route around ICANN. Thanks to Microsoft,
> >all of the technology is in people's hands (via Windows XP) to break
> >free from the shackles of the Postel regime and to build a larger, more
> >open, and more free Internet, that all of the world's people can be proud of,
> >not just the small circle of insiders who have conspired for years to
> >control the allocation of Internet resources for their own financial gain.
> >
> >Jim Fleming
> >http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> >http://www.in-addr.info
> >3:219 INFO
> >
> >--
> >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-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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