Re: [ga] Good News

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Pascal and all assembly members,

  Thank you for your comments.  The are quite interesting and
I hope thought provoking to everyone.  I have a few
comments/clarifications
to your comments/observations.  (See below yours)

Pascal Bernhard - cube wrote:

> Jeff, Eric and all assembly members,
>
> On 28 Nov 2001, at 22:45, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > I have reached a LOI in which I gratuitously threw in the GA and AL
> > > importance to a company that will be reaching out to millions, no not
> > > spam but a commercial enterprise that will both have WWW presence and
> > > physically reach a global market.
> >
> >   ORSC, New.Net, INEGroup(Many web sites for instance) and a few
> > others kinda beat you to the punch by about 1 1/2 years.  But we hope we
> > will be glad you are going to be on board!  >;)
>
> Jeff, I'm not sure what board you mean.

  No "Board" of any particular type of kind.  Rather it is a manner of
expression or speech.

> As far as my experience with
> alternative roots reaches, all are trying to push their own system on
> the market.

  This may be true of "Alternative Roots" in some instances.  However
I was not referring to "Alternative Roots".  I was referring to
Inclusive
and/or Competitive Root structures and/or registries.  Big difference
in most instances.  ORSC is NOT and "Alternative" root, by the way..

> Information exchange takes just place, when somebody
> decides "to be kind" with someone else.

  Not always.  Information comes for all sorts of interchanges.  The
FBI and other police agencies could tell you that without hesitation.

> To be kind means
> instrumentalize the other one for the own aims. I don't wanna be
> destructive, but the reality is: alternative roots don't have a real
> common censensus until today.

  Your opinion may be true for "Alternative Roots".  However it is not
for "Inclusive and Competitive" Roots and/or registries.  Perhaps this
is at the "Root" of you seeming confusion?

>
>
> As divided systems, they are too weak to have a real weight in the
> balance with ICANN, even if ORSC has 40 Mio. hits. What's a hit,
> anyway?

  What is a hit you ask?  Hummmm?  Well it is in essence an event when
a stakeholder/user visits a particular Web site.

>
>
> > > You see some interests want a non-profit legitimacy and I lied
> > > and said this reference to the GA and AL would give it to them.  Nope
> > > nothing official but a guaranteed million hits a day by May 2002.  It
> > > is so sweet - it will just say "do you want to be a part of running
> > > the worlds' Internet click here" Of course it will include things like
> > > You could be the next General Assembly Chair or you could sit on the
> > > BoD of ICANN"
> >
> Dreams... There is one thing, the alternative roots should understand.
> A root system is just so much worth as ISPs resolve it.

  First it seems again/still that you are confused between the
difference
between "Alternative" and "Inclusive and Competitive" root structures.
You also seem to be confused between Root Structures and Registries.


> I don't mean
> ISPs like John Doe in Smithvillage but real carriers and ISPs: MCI,
> ECRC, ATT and the like or very used networks like AOL.

  Is Mindspring (The 4th largest ISP) a real "Carrier"?  If it is in
your opinion than in case you didn't know, they resolve New.nets
TLD's and Domain Names registered in those name spaces.

> If anybody
> is able to bring one of them to an new root system, then there is a
> weight in the balance and that one can discuss with ICANN.

  See above.

>
>
> > > You see it is a catch 22.  No one in ICANN wants participation but by
> > > properly offering it there is nothing ICANN can do about it.
> >
> >   Except what you propose above, if any example, is not proper or
> >   legitimate.
>
> Jeff, what legitimation has ICANN anyway? ICANN is based on a
> contract with the DoC and ICANN doesn't fulfill this contract.

  You answered your now question in part.  However ICANN must also
meet all the requirements of those contracts.  ICANN has not done that
yet.


>
> Furthermore, a contract with the US DoC legitimes ICANN in the US
> but not in Mexico, Lichtenstein, Iraq, UK or Germany.

  Well to an extent your are fight here.  However to the extent that
Mexico, Lichtenstein, Iraq, UK or Germany wish to use the
USG/ICANN Root structure and TLD's without using a ISP
that supports "Inclusive and/or COmpetitive" roots and registries,
the US DOC/NTIA does legitimize with these and many more
countries.

> If anybody
> want's to create a company supporting a root server system and
> creating a kind of customer decision voting procedure, it is legitimate.

  Yes it would be to that extent.  Some such as China are doing just
that.

>
>
> > > Oh sorry that is BAD NEWS for many of you, but what the heck you are
> > > not getting anything done in the meantime.
> >
> >   We are building new networks every week.  How is Hi-Tek doing?
>
> You see: division. _That_ is the one reason why ICANN can do
> things as it does.

  ICANN can do what it does for many reasons.  It can't do what
it wants to do because others will not or are not abiding by policies
that they have no or little voice or vote in.  ICANN's share of the
divided pie is getting smaller every day.  And at an excelerating
rate.  So therefore each stakeholder can/should ask themselves, is this
good or bad?  Does this benefit me/you as a stakeholder?

>
>
> Regards,
> Pascal
>
> ================================
> Pascal Bernhard
> cube
> Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
> pbernhard@cube.de
> http://cube.de/
> http://boroon.de/
> FON: +49-6352-753725
> FAX: +49-6352-753726
> Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
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