[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Jeff,
the more there are gTLD the less gTLDs are important. TLDs are not per se 
of any interest. What is of importance is the user consortium behind the 
TLDs (the TLD registrants community). In not understanding this basic 
network element - however detailed in the RFC 920 - and accepting the 
importance of the individuals and their non-profit natural organizations, 
the ICANN has not only not corrected nor blocked the Verisign greedy drift 
(Verisign is only a secretary registering car plate equivalents) and built 
a cards castle in the air but has also distablized the NICs, killing its 
very own support through the IANA now a place of controversy.

The internet is OUR consensus to interconnect OUR machines in using the 
TCP/IP protocol set and the IP and the international datanetwork naming 
plans. The management of a consensus is named a governance. The actors of 
the Internet Governance are the Intenet participants feeling competent 
and/or concerned: they are nicknamed @large and they gather in various 
dedicated interest groups such as ISOC, IETF, ICANN Constituencies. The 
Internet being by nature a totally decentralized network system, any 
rigidity centralizing a non absolutely necessary function is endangering 
the stability, the security and the permanence of the consensus. Todate the 
only function of that nature is the (forgotten) IPv6 management. Every oher 
is transient.

If you don't accept that basic, you will be quickly circumvented as 
obsolete and inadequate. This seems a very simple thing to understand. You 
will note that this has nothing to do with any technical aspect: this has 
only to do with the social nature of any distributed system. This is why I 
say that Joe Sims is a XIXth century person and the ccTLDs are XXth century 
people as they obey respectively to predominant star and meshed cultural 
network conceptions. Reallity means "what has rules": in wanting to 
establish its own rules the ICANN is only dreaming and wasting our time and 
our money, delaying development. In a way they are "white collar 
terrorists" "commmited" to their ICP-3 faith. Delaying the world's 
development implies a very serious death toll one cannot count, but which 
is really here. One can accept errors, ignorances ... but comes a time when 
you cannot believe this is only mistakes and misunderstanding.

Do they really think that people are going to respect what the ".info" 
country name committee is going to decide :-) .... Let get real!
Jefsey

On 10:23 23/12/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Milton and all,
>
>   I think Milton here, has summed up the essence of the ccSO
>position and basic argument.
>
>   The problem with the ccSO going it alone is that in the near
>term it will have little impact as more and more gTLD's come online.
>So their long term impact as and independent SO, will be very
>difficult and inter ccTLD rivalry could become a problem.
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> > >>> Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com> 12/21/01 18:34 PM >>>
> >
> > > The NCC, if it were functional, would provide an
> > > international forum where non-commercial interests
> > > could find common ground in DNS policy. With a ccSO
> > > that potential would likely vanish.
> >
> > The NCC has been doing precisely that. The problem
> > is that from the beginning it has been assaulted by fifth-columnists 
> (ICANN consultants, e.g., or agents of ccTLDs). Another problem is that 
> DNSO is completely
> > dominated by the Business constituencies.
> > So even if we were completely successful at
> > exerting leadership (as we have been in the ORG case)
> > our views can be isolated and we can be rendered
> > helpless if someone allied to the business interests
> > wants to do it (which may yet happen with .org)
> >
> > Yet another problem is that the DNSO itself is weak.
> > Bypassed by ICANN management whenever convenient - it is noteworthy, 
> for example, that despite a unanimous
> > vote led by the "powerful" business constituencies
> > the ICANN mgmt has still not invited DNSO to be
> > represented on the committee discussing the future of
> > country name exclusions. Yet GAC and WIPO and
> > Afilias are.
> >
> > The relevance of this to the ccSO subject:
> > if developing country interests recognize the
> > failure of DNSO to be a bottom up, fair, effective
> > representation method and wish to tie themselves
> > to stronger ccTLD registries, how can we blame them?
> > Why be the weakest member of a weak appendage
> > to the ICANN Structure?
> >
> > I think that is what this ccSO debate it all about.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
>Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga at dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo at dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html