[ncdnhc-discuss] No new LA agenda

[Jefsey Morfin]

On 03:19 28/09/01, Dave Crocker said:
>The problem is not that ICANN has shifted the focus of the next meeting to 
>operations-related issues.
>The problem is that it has not been allowed to pursue that focus previously.

how nicely phrased all this is. This is dramatically true. Mission creep 
has hidden these matters.

1. the technical management of the root server system. The responsibility 
has been entrusted to Louis Touton as the ICANN was not able to find a 
technical manager in California and disregarded the proposition of free 
cooperation of a French engineer. Thought to find qualified technical staff 
in the USA and in particular in California.

2. the location of the root server system. I was alone among BoD candidates 
to rise this as a major point. A single power failure of magnitude on the 
east coast progressively stops the net. I am sorry that events alighted my 
position so much. However the US Internet situation may be a concern of 
mine, my priority is about the Internet European support. Or the Australian 
connections, them being so remote to the root system. The only solution we 
may think of is mirroring galaxies sharing root updates through TFP. Well, 
well, this is what the free roots do....

3. the security of the Internet is mostly endangered by the ICANN policy 
over subjects like:

- the nature of the Domain Name and the management of huge TLDs by 
commercial low grade services. I strongly suggest the normal response 
planned by Jon Postel according to the then prevailing intl public data 
network naming plan: unlimited number of small multiorganization TLDs. Much 
more resilient. Also I frankly prefer activists to play with their local 
TLDs than with bombs.

- on a mid term basis the social consensus, the rigidness of the network, 
the cost of operation will depend on the current yet not discussed, not 
validated, not controlled decisions over the new IP addressing plan. This 
represents the most important mid-term threat on the Internet.

- the attempts at dominance by the ICANN makes it an obvious target by 
terrorist wanting to hit hard symbols of the so called "US Imperialism". 
The constant ICANN's mission creep certainly upsets many people in the 
world. I suppose that the MdR building, BoD Members, Staff main actors, Joe 
Sims as the thinker of the dominance establishment process, should be 
provided body guards (I am not joking at all: the net has gained enough 
audience all through the world for symbols to have become virtual).

- the duopoly with VeriSign which is a worldwide symbol of the US financial 
stand (.com, certificates) is also a potential target. The Internet City in 
Herndon too. SAIC - VeriSign and NSI owner - is obviously a real target 
with a worldwide impact due to its involvement in financial transaction, 
military services and its retired brass hat and CIA staff.

However, Dave, the real danger to the Internet is the ICANN itself as a 
single point of vulnerability. The real impact of a bomb in MdR would be 
the complexity of Louis Touton's legacy. We must seriously protect the 
place and the people, but we must also reduce the mission creep and the 
involvement. ICANN is today a symbol of real worldwide magnitude even if 
the ICANN is unknown. If the ICANN had staid to its mission, it would not 
be a potential target. The best protection of the Internet against 
terrorists is the same as against lawyers, bankers or sales: it is the 
abandon of the complex contract policy and to come back to equal to all 
standard relations. Only them will permit real day to day protection 
against intrusion and terrorist hacking.

Jefsey