Re: [wg-review] Resumption of Review.

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Kent,
This is interesting.

On 23:09 15/02/01, Kent Crispin said:
>1) does the mission of ICANN merit all the expense and infrastructure
>that a world wide interent democracy would require? and
>2) are there other approaches that are effective but cheaper?
>
>Obviously, I believe that the answer to the first question is an
>emphatic "no!".

You right if you consider the cost. You wrong if you consider the
importance. PSO has no real interest: number on a sheet of paper.
DNSO would have no real interest would the DN being defined as
it would really be boring and well addressed in local laws.

But ASO is of tremendous importance. And should require that
type of infrastructure. Not on a permanent basis but or the IP
addressing plan requirement definitions and solution.

>In the initial stages ICANN must define it's role, and that definition
>phase will invole establishment of policies and procedures.  Once
>that role is well-defined, ICANN should fade into the background.

The ill definition of its role in TLDs will probably - as we explained
it would a long ago - be its doom. We however need the iCANN RSC
to survive to adhere to the ORSC and permit a nice growth of the
Internet.

>If it doesn't fade into the background, then IT WILL HAVE
>FAILED.  In the long term ICANN should be mostly invisible and very
>boring, and it simply won't merit the attention it currently gets.  Bear
>in mind that the cost of ICANN will ultimately be born by domain name
>registrants and other direct users.  How much time and energy can the
>average person expect to spend on something that costs $6/year,
>wholesale?

Boring not as the iCANN should be a forum. But controled by many
people through press, Govs, etc.. Mike Roberts is making a major
mistake with the role he is giving to the GAC... I know you support
that:

>The answer to the second is "of course!" There are already
>well-established government agencies that deal with organizations in a
>position of potential monopoly: anti-trust agencies.  They operate with
>all authority and mechanism of real governments, and ICANN will be under
>their scrutiny.  It is not necessary to build elaborate oversight of
>ICANN, because the mechanism already exists, and we don't have to pay
>the cost of duplicating it.

but ILHO you are really wrong. This is the policy of that King of Ireland
calling the British in to fight another King of Ireland. Eventually the result
will be the same: the devil will not die in Killarney and the Irishmen will
go to America.

In this case, Mike wants to control 242 ccTLDs in calling on GAC
against all the IANA rules...  ccTLDs will evade and millions of TLDs
will develop without other coordination that what we try quickly to set
up without the money iCANN spend foolishly.

Mike's decision, iCANN's failure.
Esther wanted the augmented.root illegal ... dear Esther under which
law?

BTW:

-  under which law is the iCANN legal? Don't say CA, that is the law to
    build the iCANN structure. Don't say the US: they dont even know
    what is the iCANN mission. I think the only country where iCANN really
    has a legal mission is Tuvalu since the iCANN protected ".tv" is part
    of the royal domain. The French Internet law project does not even
    mention iCANN.

-  I must confess I was deadly wrong in calling first for a DN definition.

    Sotiris: I realize we have a bigger problem: we have no legal definition
    of the Internet. This is a far more important subject: the Internet was
    first referred to as "the nets". That is a better name. The nets may be
    supported by several name resolution programs including the DNS,
    hosts.txt etc... "the nets" are not subject to most Internet related
    legislations. where are the boarders? What may define Internet vs. an
    externet, the nets... not the protocols, not the IP addresses, not
    the access providers, not the users, not the browsers, not the law...

    Only consensus... and they want to vote and legislate consensus?

Jefsey











--
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