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

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
To: "Sandy Harris" <sandy@storm.ca>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform


> 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.

The first problem is that it is State Law that Directors are accorded access
to the company's books. Any idiot knows that so ICANN's refusing to asceed
to the law's requirements somehow says that it is not subject to the Laws of
the State of California and that is a problem in the very least. Further it
is also negligence on management part to spend good legal money on trying to
stop a director from looking at the books.

What I percieve of  Lynn and Cerf is that they may  perhaps be affraid of is
that they would have to take civil recourse against Karl if he were to leak
any of ICANN's finaicial information,; But there is another side to this
too. If per say ICANN's board was doing something financially hinky or
something they are not chartered to do, the with ICANN operating finacially
outside of its charter, if Karl as a director were to gain knowledge of
that, he would have no choice but to disclose it to the people whose
interests he represents on the Board.

And possibly to the Department of Justice as well.

I am not making any threats or statements herein - just presenting a
potential possibility.


>
> 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'

The reason there is only one root is because some IETF'er said so and for no
other reason. Why does this limit ICANN or you for that matter? If they
wanted to support more than one Root Zone they could use my RZP (yes its
been filed with the IETF), or any of the other Multi-Root solutions like
BindPlus etc etc etc.

> >
> > 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 agree - But ICANN by its structure and operating models, never could.

> >
> > 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.

These are not issues of structure but in the actions ofthe people operating
ICANN.

> >
> > 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.

I would agree but restructuring them is not the idea eathier. I would like
to split them into several vertical slices. And then provide oversight and
auditing at all levels especially the registrar's and Registries as well as
the Standards Arm.

> >
> > > or only one Internet.

Take a deep breath. The concept that there is only one Internet is a
fantasy.

> >
> > There is only one Internet.

Lwets exlpore my above comment further. What there is, is one public address
space model used, but there are many Internets. All joined with Network
Gateways instead of Routers.

> >
> > > 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?

To some extent. I believe it is the next phase of the evolution of a global
information back bone and that we will probably spend 10 years or so working
out to treaties and networking to really make Jon Postel's and Vit Cerf's
early visions of  a global Internet a reality. Right now the thing that they
were talking about not only doesn't exist but would be toxis to the
governmentsw of the world too and that makes it toxic to its users.

This is not about a one world order, as a society we are decades away from
that. Its about surviving with eachother in the interim until we can get
there.

> >
> > > and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
> >
> > That does not follow.

Yes it does.

> >
> > > 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.

No, I disagree. The missing piece is a /8 or a couple of  /8's for global
Interchange. These would be very well known gateway addresses for
country-wide Internets. They could also handle many of the global trademark
names as well.

> >
> > > 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?

Try my RZP (Root Zone Protocol) draft for instance. get it from the IETF or
I will send you a better formatted copy. Otherwiase there is all sorts of
tunneling and header management/forwarding writeups in the routing document
on file with Sun, Cisco, and IETF as a larger body. Also there are plenty of
scalar NAT solutions document by their sources.

> > --
> > 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
>

--
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