Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

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

Jefsey and all assembly members,

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> On 18:05 30/10/02, Marc Schneiders said:
> > >From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:
> >
> >"2.3     In view of the continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its
> >stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD
> >database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
> >a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
> >entries and database entries. It is expected this plan will be
> >developed in parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO, and
> >to be available in the event that is unsuccessful."
> >
> >That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
> >think, been so clear before.
> >
> >If you treat it like an enemy, it will behave like one.
>
> This is a step further to the "nuclear arsenal".

  I disagree and this language is overly paranoid in nature as well.

  I ti and has been clear for sometime that a large number of the ccTLD's have
been very concerned and feel disenfranchised with respect to ICANN.  They
have clearly stated on a number of occasions through various ad-hoc groups
as well as independently in a few cases, that much of what they are
requesting or requiring, is basically reasonable.  However the ICANN BoD
and staff in particular have at every turn treated the ccTLD's and most
especially their registrants/users/stakeholders shabbily.  Hence it is quite
evident that ICANN's attitude and policy process is tainted in some
respects to force policies upon ccTLD's that are in some if not
many instances less than legal in their respective positions.  Hence
also ICANN has made an enemy of the ccTLD's not the other way
around.

  Yet there is middle ground.  But as we have repeatedly seen, for those
of us that have been around for awhile the ICANN BoD and staff
for the most part is entrenched in intractable positions already long ago
pre-determined as Karl once noted.  Therefore is is long past due for
the respective individual governments to weigh in and do so wisely.
Such will take at this juncture uncommon wisdom I believe if
future disruptiveness emanating from ICANN is to be avoided.

>
> The real problem is they will have now to agree without being opposed to ICANN.
> The next step is to have it proven in operational test for at least six months.

  Why?

>
>
> This leads to next year DoC decision.

  Agreed that this will likely be the end game gambit..

> Will they give the Internet to
> Verisign or to the world.

  Huh???

> IMHO the  decison is taken for a long. It will go
> where Staff has it prepared, according to Plan B and Stuart's call alibi:
> where the money has been gathered. ISOC will be ready by then as a true
> @large organization.

  The ISOC has moved in the complete opposite direction of late by
eliminating individuals from being voting members.  Hence I fail to see
them now or in the long term again do a 180...

>
>
> jfc

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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