<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [wg-review] Resumption of Review.
Jefsey,
Now I see what I've said expressed in proper terms. These interlocking
networks which are neither the businesses or the hardware involved, and
include both, and more, in a fluid medium of exchange between end users
(businesses that use but are not part of distribution of internet services,
and individual 'netizens') as well as B2B, B2C, and all the other movement
of information/content. Obviously, I'm not that well versed technically.
The point being, the very fuidity of the networks themselves, making for a
new set of concepts. I've referred to the need for a 'dynamic' component
for supervisory/oversight bodies. This goes beyond, but for us starts with,
ICANN. A definition of the internet(s) may be a bigger job than a
definition of domain names.
By the way, thanks for the correction, I'd forgotten the first reffered to
Australian root, and made note of the other. I'm passing this information
on to friends with big 'lists' to get more people involved in more than the,
supposedly, main root.
Studiously yours,
Phil King in Butte MT
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:40:23 +0000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 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
>
Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|