Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

ummmmmmm,
Karl may correct me at any time but it is my understanding that his suit
was about access to records and directors' rights/responsibilities.
Nothing in any file documents I read mentioned technical management of
the internet.
While it may be argued by many (including myself) that there has been a
failure on the 'open and transparent' front, I fail to see how Karl's
suit was an expample of ICANNs failure to manage the root in an open and
transparent way.  

Sandy Harris wrote:
> 
> todd glassey wrote:
> 
> 8 cc's deleted.
> 
> > If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
> > they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> 
> Possibly.
> 
> > The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root,
> 
> The protocols require that there be only one root:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt
> 
> Methinks ICANN quite obviously have no right to claim they are living
> up to their obligations to manage that root in a "open and transparent"
> manner. Karl's suit is the most blatant example.
> 
> I'd argue that they are failing on other criteria too. Eliminating
> publicly elected directors from a "public interest" corporation,
> amd generally operating more as a club for various special interests
> than in the the public interest.
> 
> Overall, I'd question ICANN's right to suggest -- let alone insist --
> that they have done a competent job to date, or that they should be
> trusted to manage the root in future.
> 
> > or only one Internet.
> 
> There is only one Internet.
> 
> > And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
> > the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is political
> > rather than technical
> 
> You support this?
> 
> > and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
> 
> That does not follow.
> 
> > If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4 space
> > by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of China.
> 
> That doesn't work, at least not with standard NAT. The could use all of
> 10.0.0.0/8 in China without problems, but not 0.0.0.0/0.
> 
> > Poof - with this type of technology you get instant independent namespace
> > and IP address space as well. And its so simple to implement relative to the
> > existing practices and technologies, that its almost laughable...
> 
> It looks purely imaginary to me. Can you point to docs on the NAT
> variant
> that you believe will make this work?
> --
> 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

-- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
--
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