Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

["John Palmer" <jp@ADNS.NET>]

And remember, the ICANN monopoly is only an illusion - If people
will change their root.cache files or their dns settings on their
workstations, then their power vanishes. 

So, there is still hope. The problem is that the internet community as
a whole doesn't understand the ramifications of ICANN. All they know
is when they type in www.mypornsite.com, it gets them to their
dirty pictures, etc. Beyond that, it gets too complicated for their lazy minds.

Sad but true - and this is the way it is in politics in general, not just
with ICANN.

The INS has been making very slow in-roads and continues to progress.
Projects are in the works with large (multi $100 millions) donors to move
this forward even faster. 

John
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]


> 
> 
> On 30 May 2003 at 16:03, Don Brown wrote:
> 
> > I have never endorsed the Alternate Root, but I can certainly see the
> > merit of it, particularly in the face of what ICANN has come to be and of
> > what ICANN has come to stand for.
> > 
> > If the Community wants equity, democracy and a voice in Internet
> > governance, then the Community will need to create it.  It's not
> > happening within the ICANN structure and the evidence shows it's
> > ICANN's intent for it never to happen.
> > 
> 
> Those who have been involved with the inclusive name space have been saying the 
> same thing for many years.  ICANN was the result of special interests.  It could 
> never have evolved into a true community effort because all the cards were stacked 
> from the beginning.  The alternate roots are not just rootzone files.  They are efforts 
> by much of the community to have exactly what it needs - choice and a voice.  The 
> idea of multiple roots is not something to be avoided, but embraced.  Allowing 
> market forces to determine which TLDs will survive and which will not is also 
> something to be embraced.  It also doesn't mean that a small entity can't operate a 
> TLD, that they must be either for-profit or non-profit, free or fee based.  For that 
> matter, multiple TLD registries may have both and some do. Some are US based 
> and many are not.
> 
> If people could just get beyond the notion that a TLD is an index or search engine, 
> the concept of thousands of TLDs would be welcomed.  Search engines today 
> based their results on page text, not domain names.  If there are thousands of TLDs 
> (and there are) search engines would come up with many methods to list web sites 
> (for those who think that the internet is the web).  Trademarks would be irrelevant, 
> as they should be in the DNS and there are many alternatives to the few open TLDs 
> offered in the USG root by ICANN favorites.
> 
> There is already an effort to scan for all existing TLDs and produce a list that anyone 
> can access.  I would love to see the community get behind efforts such as this and 
> route around the damage.  
> 
> As for the alternate roots themselves, anyone can join the community and have a 
> voice.
> 
> Leah
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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