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

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Ummmm todd,
this still does not answer the question. the question was about mgmt of
the root....not about the admin stuff. AFAIK, Karl never requested a
copy of any zone file or other live data...did he?

todd glassey wrote:
> 
> ----- 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
> >

-- 
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