[ncdnhc-discuss] Please note...

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2001-November/000718.html
Dave Crocker dhc2 at dcrocker.net
"Please note that Karl's note continues to avoid responding to the issues
raised in the technical draft I cited.  This is a technical issue.  Karl is
not willing to have his statements considered in the technical forum that
is appropriate for this issue.  Please consider why he behave in this
manner, given that he is extremely experienced with the IETF."
-------

Please note...apparently, it is perfectly OK for some people to choose
who they will debate with. It is interesting that people in the IETF refuse
to discuss topics with people they know they can not baffle. The IETF is
also a group that loves to play word games about having no members, but,
when faced with having to be compared to other standards organizations,
the IETF magically then has a substantial number of members.

For those not familiar with the early days of ICANN, the IETF attempted to
be the one-way, or the highway, crowd. They ran into a problem, because
organizations like the ITU, ETSI and the W3C all had grown in size to
potentially overshadow the IETF. ICANN made the politically correct move
of lumping all of those organizations into the largely silent PSO.
Organizations
such as the IEEE, ANSI, etc. were not included, it was clear that the IETF
would dominate, yet lip-service would be paid to groups that would bow to
the IETF. This structure continues to manifest itself in an IETF-centric
view
of the world.

http://www.pso.icann.org/Pso_origins.htm
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
International Telecommunications Union (ITU);
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
----------

In looking at these four organizations, it would seem most likely that the
DNS debates would be lead by the W3C. Afterall, many people think that
a domain name is synonymous with a web-site, and the W3C is all about
the web. Contrary to myths, the IETF did not create HTML. In fact the
IETF is very slow to adopt any new technology that they do not control,
dominate, etc.

It is curious that, here we have the great central coordination body called
ICANN, and ICANN has 1/3rd of its Board votes taken from the silent PSO,
and the PSO has 4 equal members, yet the conclusion is that the IETF is
the "right place" ("appropriate forum") to discuss technical matters. Most
people do not have to look for in trying to determine why such a narrow,
unquestioned conclusion is drawn, especially by long-time IETF advocates.
[ Careful, do not say "IETF members", you may end up in 7 years of
circular debates about there being no members, yet members are cited as
having a consensus, when convienant, the members come and go as needed.]
In fact, when ICANN was being formed, apparently the IETF leaders did
not want to allow ETSI into their private little club, they argued that ETSI
was too small, with only a few hundred members. Apparently, someone
pointed out to the IETF that its size was even smaller, with ZERO members,
and that caused the IETF to reverse and claim it had lots of members and
ETSI was allowed into the club.

If ICANN were representative, one would expect that the four organizations
listed above, would all debate significant topics and then come to a central
place to share their conclusions and with only 4 organizations, a quick vote
could be taken. It should not be surprising that this sort of process does
not
happen, when a dominant participant like the IETF (actually the dozen vocal
IETF people who claim to speak for many) takes the view on everything that
it is their way or the highway, then there ceases to be any point in trying
to
give any more hope that ICANN will be representative.

In my opinion, people all around the world and the net have seen what the
zealot-driven ICANN is all about. After 7 years of working to get some
simple
changes made to the DNS one has to question why one spends any time
with such a society. This is especially the case when one steps back and
realizes that the Internet is a very large address space and that address
space
can be easily expanded with 15 more equal size address spaces, with no
changed to the existing IPv4 systems. With the introduction of IPv6 with
IPv8 Addressing, one sees that even those 15 address spaces plus the
current tiny address space, are tiny when one considers the total potential.
In fact, it is so large that one could imagine being able to get away from
the
dozen or so zealots that dominate the IETF, and likely never have to cross
their path again.

As the new .BIZ Top-Level-Domain continues to expand, it will be interesting
to see how the people left behind on the tiny IPv4 network are able to
cope with the fact that not only do people not turn to the IETF for any
useful guidance, but they also do not pay much attention to the experiments
being run on the IPv4 network. In the true Internet tradition, people can
now
recognize damage and route around it. ICANN and the IETF are clearly
broken, in my opinion. If anyone thinks that humans should relive 7 years of
the nonsense that those two organizations spewed forth, then I invite those
people to remain in these forums and continue to listen to the nonsense,
because it clearly has no end.


Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO