RE: Re(2): [wg-review] Re(2): [cctld-discuss] Comments on review of DNSO by Mr Park

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

The issue is moot. It will not be settled here, or within ICANN. The last
time this issue arose (IAHC), the answer was the GreenPaper, from the United
States Executive branch, including a restucturing, away from the US National
Science Foundation. Those are the facts, I don't control them.

In 1998, /USG/DOC/NTIA, proposed to hand over the root-zone to ICANN, in two
years (by Oct00). MHSC, ORSC, and two others, protested that as an improper
divestiture of USG assets, under US law. For unstated reasons, this hand-off
was delayed, in Oct00. You can draw your own implications. 

MHSC protested, not because of any US proprietary bias, but because it was,
in fact, an improper disbursement of US assets, to a group, in violation of
open bidding regulations. In short, MHSC wants the rights to bid on the
contract, along with ICANN, in competitive fashion, as guaranteed by US law,
which both ICANN and MHSC work under. Under those rules, technical ability
to actually operate the contract is a key factor. MHSC still believes that
the ICANN is incompetent to operate the root-zone. MHSC has been operating a
root-zone for four years, so has ORSC. MHSC has designed, built, and
implemented, many large eCommerce sites and H-A datacenters. ICANN cannot
even manage a proper voting site and I don't see them running a
24x7x365/99.999%, data center. I am not saying that MHSC would have a better
chance at the contract either. If it is indeed opened up, under US FAR,
there are a largish number of US defense contractors
(Lockheed/Martin/NeuStar?) that might very well over-power us in the bid
war(very high likelyhood). The point is that MHSC would rather, those
competent competitors operate the root-zone than the ICANN, in its present
incompetent form, as exhibited in the MDR TLD selection process.

Lest any disparage the USG FAR process, it is the same process that put a
man on the moon and a space station into space. It also built the worlds
most powerful military force. Warts included, the track-record there is
excellent. NSI is operating, the root-zone, under such a contract.

Like it as not, the Internet is still a USG venture, subject to US laws, and
USG oversight.

-- 
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: rmeyer@mhsc.com


> From: Oscar A. Robles Garay [mailto:orobles@nic.mx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:55 AM

> One more, are you assuming that ICANN must remain in the US 
> and should be under the mandate os USG/DoC/NTIA ?, let me 
> dream a little bit more, but I'M NOT.

> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > Two points counter the importance of this language issue;
> > 1) ICANN receives it's mandate from the United States 
> Government, Department
> > of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information 
> Administration. As
> > such, it is answerable to them and the United States 
> Congress. Since ICANN
> > must please the United States Congress, it behooves the 
> ICANN to have ALL
> > documentation in American English, as a primary choice.
> > 2) Ref: Tower of Babel.(see Genesis 11:1-9, Christian Bible)
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html