Re: [ga] Good News

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

Pascal and all assembly members,

Pascal Bernhard - cube wrote:

> Jeff and all assembly members,
>
> On 30 Nov 2001, at 17:17, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   BORooN?  I am not familiar with that?  Any URL references?
>
> boroon.net - BORooN = Business Oriented Root Network
> I posted a URL about our White Paper a few days ago in this list.

  Ok I remember that.  Thank you for the clarification.  >;)

>
>
> > > >   No "Board" of any particular type of kind.  Rather it is a manner
> > > >   [...]
> >   None in specific as I already stated.  Rather a method.
>
> Sorry. We may play with words for a long time. But I haven't that
> time.

  No playing on my part.

>
>
> > > For ICANN and most of the people out of here, all roots which are not
> > > managed by ICANN are alternative roots.
> >
> >   Not so any longer.
>
> ? Please specify.

  Already did in these exchanges.  But I shall do so again.  ORSC
AUDNS Ahnet, ect, ect...

>
>
> > > Please don't expect people
> > > out of the classical industry (or old economy) to understand what is a
> > > root. Among the alternative roots, there are inclusive and exclusive
> > > roots. No.  There are inclusive and competitive Root structures.
> >
> > > The definition of inclusive and exclusive seems to differ from
> > > community to community. I use inclusive roots as an expression for a
> > > root which includes the *official* roots.
> >
> >   There are no "Official" Roots any longer.  There are simply Inclusive
> > and competitive root structures.
>
> Who states that?

  About 16 m stakeholders/registrants do so by their registrations.

> If this is one of your statements, I can accept it as
> your point of view - which is not wrong as is.

  It is not my point of view.  It is simply a well known fact.
See my above short response.

> If no "official root"
> exists, this has to be a statement from ICANN itself. Did I miss
> anything?

  ICANN is a small non-profit organization under contract to the
USG/DOC/NTIA.

>
>
> > > The result of having many inclusive roots, is that they show on a
> > > common namespace (ICANN) and on own namespaces which may be different.
> >
> >   Yes this would be a working definition of a Inclusive root structure
> > except ICANN doesn't own the Legacy/USG Root's.  The USG DOC/NTIA does.
> > Hence perhaps, your confusion...
>
> Okay. But I'm not interested in the formal structure. The actual
> strucuture is interesting. Differing roots exist simply because
> (a) ICANN doesn't seem to be able to fulfill its contractual role:
> developping the Internet by setting up more technically _and_ legally
> _stable_ TLDs.
> (b) The legacy/USG roots set up the TLDs ICANN defines as "legal".

  Yes they are indeed legal, but so are a number  other Root
structures.

>
> (c) ICANN's process for submitting TLDs lasts too long and costs to
> much.

  Agreed here.  And it has violated RFC1591 as well as the ICANN
TLD selection process has not been a very open process either.
This is what we as stakeholders must seek to change or more accurately
correct.  However the ICANN BOD and staff have been very
entrenched in not being willing to do so thus far.  As such, therefore,
other Root structures and registries (Inclusive and competitive)
have been underway and shall continue to do so.

>
> (d) Beside the forum structures and public meetings of the BoD and
> of the constituencies, the real, practical decisions are taken
> elsewhere.

  Well yes.  But the ICANN BoD and staff have set into place
policies for doing so contrary to the stakeholders consent, yet in
those same stakeholders names.  This is a significant departure
from the MoU and the White Paper.

>
>
> Please don't forget, that the Internet has to be a useful instrument for
> communication and is not an aim by itself.

  Indeed to a great extent true.  But also the Internet is a vehicle
for ecommenrce.

> That's why it doesn't
> matter, if roots are named inclusive or official and who formally
> decides about the legacy roots.

  I agree to an extent.

>
>
> > > >   What is a hit you ask?  Hummmm?  Well it is in essence an event
> > > >   when a
> > > > stakeholder/user visits a particular Web site.
> > >
> > > Jeff, I know what a hit is.
> >
> >   Than why did you ask?  >;)
>
> This was not a question, but a comment about the usefulness of a hit
> as a statistical data.

  Ok.  Well it had a "?" to indicate it was a question.

>
>
> > > That states, that new.net is running an adequate market strategy. Do
> > > you look at new.net as an inclusive/competitive root structure?
> >
> >   Yes.
>
> Okay. I suppose this is true, when I use your definition of an
> inclusive/competitive root.
>
> > > Do
> > > you think the reaction of ICANN against new.net is adequate?
> >
> >   No.  It in fact is anti competitive in it's nature.  However
> >   thankfully
> > Done Evans made the DOC/NTIA's position somewhat clear.
> > That being essentially that the USG/DOC/NTIA will not do
> > anything to harm or thwart competitive or inclusive Root structures or
> > registries.  But also will not assist them either.  And that is fine.
>
> Agree with that.
>
> 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