Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

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

Todd and all assembly members,

todd glassey wrote:

> Jeff -
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process
>
> > Todd and all assembly members,
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > I still think that ICANN's biggest political and technical hurdle to
> leap is
> > > really what to do about other ROOT's.This may seem like a simple
> business
> > > question but it has far reaching ramifications that stretch throughout
> the
> > > entirety of what we know as the Internet.
> >
> >   ICANN and the other root structures have two choices really.
> > They can either work together and co-exist and still compete, or
> > they can be totally diverse.
>
> OK but on who's address space, and how could one bridge lookups between the
> two DNS Roots?.

  This is a rather large question to answer on this forum in a single post,
Todd.  But the answers have already been provided before on these
same debates and discussions before you started participating and
are a matter of record.  In any event Todd, this question, and others
in a similar vain are still worth asking again and reviewing.

  This being said and ask again now, the very short answer would be
that already tested and somewhat deployed Whois's are readily
available.  Do a search on Google yourself and see...  BindPlus(s)
are deployed or are being tested to handle resolution concerns
between different or diverse Roo structures.  SROOTS (Shared Roots)
is also being used also to in a different way address the answer to your
question..

> My take is that DNS and BIND fail this clearly but that the
> Search Engines may hold some hope if they can get their bad links cut to a
> minimum and provides regularly pruned lookup services.

  Search engines are a different animal if yo will.  Yes indeed they too
will need to change as well, and some are in process.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Further - it needs to be noted that ICANN can develop whatever it wants
> > > internally but if its processes are too oppressive and too painful to
> deal
> > > with, then these other ROOTS will certainly gain significant numbers of
> > > ICANN's existing customers and that is a serious issue to deal with.
> >
> >   Agreed.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ICANN's trying to stop the operations of these other ROOTS is equally
> > > problematic since it ***will*** result in law suits and like restraining
> > > orders against ICANN, its officers and its agents (the Registrars and
> the
> > > ASO members) from prohibiting these other roots from functioning.
> Restraint
> > > of Trade is a pretty easy claim to prove here under today's
> circumstances.
> >
> >   Also agreed.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As a simple example, I allege that it is possible that ICANN is playing
> > > antitrust by locking out other Internet Standards Processes and
> > > organizations. This is simply demonstrated by that IANA will not issue a
> > > system port except to an organization that has an IETF RFC number. So no
> one
> > > from ITU or any of the other standards orgs can submit anything for the
> > > issuance of a System Port on the Global Internet unless they play
> ICANN's
> > > PSO Game and that is clearly anti-trust since ICANN does not own the
> > > Internet.
> >
> >   Yes this is an ever increasing problem that many seemed to have missed
> > to date.
> >
> > > Which simply says, that without the IETF/IESG/IAB processes in
> > > place, nothing gets codified as an Internet Standard and personally that
> is
> > > the largest load of BS anywhere.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Another concept here is that the Domain Owners are more the friend of
> the
> > > Registrars than ICANN is, and if you don't believe me, then ask Verisign
> how
> > > many bodies to GoDaddy they lost because GoDaddy is more friendly to end
> > > users at the wallet level. And most of the Domain Registrars don't
> realize
> > > this yet because we spend so much time arguing about personal sh*t and
> not
> > > the goals of the group.
>
> This last comment is really important to building a domain owners and
> registrars constituency since the best interests of the Domain Owners are
> almost always directly atop those of the Registrars.

  Well they should be, but it doesn't seem that the ICANN staff and
BoD are in agreement with you on this.

> Especially since the
> registrars andregistries only have one commercial customer, and that is the
> individual requesting the publishing of the name's address.

  Good point.

>
>
> > >
> > > Todd Glassey
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> > > Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 12:56 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process
> > >
> > > > Danny and all assembly members,
> > > >
> > > >   Yes it was very interesting reading in light of recent events, and
> > > > ongoing events.  I hope you took the liberty of passing this
> > > > response of yours on to the DOC/NTIA.  ??
> > > >
> > > > DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A document entitled "Names Policy Development Process Assistance
> Group:
> > > > > Preliminary Framework" has been released by the ERC's select Task
> Force:
> > > > >
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > This task force consists of Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade,
> > > Guillermo
> > > > > Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin
> and
> > > Philip
> > > > > Sheppard -- basically the same bunch of folks that have provided us
> with
> > > such
> > > > > wonderful policy guidance so far.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have already had the benefit of Working Group D... unfortunately,
> no
> > > one
> > > > > on the Council ever gave its recommendations anything more than lip
> > > service,
> > > > > and of course they have completely eliminated all working groups.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have already had the benefit of "Rules of Procedures for the DNSO
> > > Names
> > > > > Council" to govern policy development processes within task forces
> and
> > > > > working groups... unfortunately, no one on the Council even
> remembers
> > > these
> > > > > procedures, or what they're supposed to do when they convene a task
> > > force --
> > > > > they only write these rules to prove that they are busy doing
> something.
> > > > >
> > > > > And now we have the benefit of even more empty words regarding
> > > "timelines"
> > > > > and "opportunities for public input" by the very same people that
> have
> > > spent
> > > > > 10 months in a transfers task force accomplishing nothing related to
> > > > > transfers, that won't publish a timeline, and that have used every
> means
> > > at
> > > > > their disposal to keep interested parties out of their closed task
> > > forces.
> > > > >
> > > > > This document is just another sham to continue to foist these
> > > illegitimate,
> > > > > non-productive, and hardly-attended task forces upon us.   The
> phrase
> > > > > "working group" isn't even mentioned.  Open, bottom-up, and fully
> > > transparent
> > > > > is being replaced by closed, top-down, and non-transparent task
> force
> > > > > teleconferences where minutes aren't even posted.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing this group is accomplishing is preservation of the
> > > horribly
> > > > > failed status quo... and of course, they create the pretense that
> ICANN
> > > is
> > > > > actually involved in evolutionary reform so that the DoC will be
> > > pacified.
> > > > >
> > > > > Same old pretty-sounding words that we've all heard before, written
> with
> > > such
> > > > > a high level of generality as to be totally useless -- just like the
> > > current
> > > > > Names Council, and equally not surprising as almost every committee
> > > member is
> > > > > or was a Council rep.
> > > > >
> > > > > Garbage in, Garbage out.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
> > > >
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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