[ncdnhc-discuss] Re : [Implementation of Evolution and Reform] Another Exploration?

[J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin]

On 07:07 29/07/02, YJ Park said:
>Dear Jefsey,
>Thank you for your efforts to make this discussion more constructive.
>
>As I admitted, I am lost here after particiapted in ICANN testbed for
>three years which unfortunately turned out as total failure. I was in
>ICANN as an Internet user under gTLD space and Internet user
>under .KR space.
>
>Facing ICANN reform I think it would be helpful for NCDNHC to be
>exposed to as diverse proposals as possible to have better views
>where we are heading to.
>
>To have better understanding on your proposal on GCC and GIC, let
>me ask several questions of you, if you don't mind.
>
>Assuming the GIC+GCC proposal is on the table for ERC discussion,
>
>Q1. Can you explain what could be and should be the roles for the
>governments in the area of ccTLDs and gTLDs under this scheme.

Dear YJ,
The Governments have no specific role: tThey have legitimacy and law over 
what is national. ITU has legitimacy from Govs over what is international. 
ICANN has legitimacy and delegation over what comes from the USG in the 
Internet (.arpa today still leading sub-namespace) .

The question is to know where the other legitimacies and capacities will 
house themselves. This is clearly defined in the initial agreements and in 
the very nature of what is a root name (ie the root of the names of a 
sub-namspace into another sub-namespace and subsequently/originally - 
depending on the project - in the global namespace).

Question is only: is it of interest to the namespace to stay/become united 
or not?

ccTLDs have been accepted as national sub-namespaces interconnected to the 
".arpa" sub-namespace. gTLDs are ".arpa" rooted names targeting initially 
the Tymnet and Telenet sub-namespace and exetended for convenience to the 
commercial and network oriented issues - their main themes. RFC 920 is 
clear (and this was the deal) : .edu, .com, .net, are amdinistered by 
NIC/IANA/ICANN, ccTLDs and moTLDs (multiorganization TLD) are registered to 
be related with.

Govs have powers on ccTLDs not because of the IANA but because of their 
local powers. But the ccTLDs musty claim their legitimacy as user 
associations where they have far more rights and indepedence and not as 
communiations operators where they have no ancient grounds and they are 
subject to local commununications acts. Mikes trick was to call on Govs as 
if the ccTLDs were only communications operators gettng their legitimacy 
from the Internet (what is true in most of the cases). ccTLDs correctly 
responded trough their contact and BP in MdR 2000 but are not taking 
advantage from their position.

The .za redelegation is perfectly legitimate as a telecommunication 
service. It is anti-constitutional as a private association. It is probably 
disputable as the university administative service it was first.

The Internet sub-namespace delegation is to ".arpa" with interconnects 
delegated to user groups names. The legal nature of these user groups is 
not relevant. The only requested thingis that the calls can go through.

This is a very old deal. But the point is that it worked. It still works. 
That ICANN claims its legitimacy on it (ICP-3 has not been discussed by the 
DNSO because it is supposed to represent the permanent Internet policy. As 
long as it conformes to RFC 920 it is the case. When it does not it is just 
usrrpation).


>Q2. Re ccTLD matters, ccTLD alliances are here recommended to
>work closely with ICANN even in the GIC+GCC model. What kind of
>relations could be developed?
>
>     - between ccTLD alliances and ICANN
>     - between ccTLD alliances and GIC+ GCC
>     - ccTLD allainces and the governments

The real problem is that English misses some of the key meaning words. When 
Joe Sims describes what he wants "to work together in a concerted way" the 
English word is "coordination" which means "to coooperate under a common 
authority". This kills everything.

ccTLDs are legitimate from their users as a user group.
ccTLDs have become operators and are subject to national legal 
communications rules.
ccTLDs have also become sellers of domain names along with the US ACPA 
erroneous legislation what make them preys for VRSN and others.

They try more or less to cooperate through their alliance (some sharing 
their weight, legitimacy and authority: nuclear powee). They sould retain 
that authority and develop it in parallel though @large animation, 
innovation, etc.. This is not easy and they have various level of 
development. So their community needs an umbrella.

That umbrella can be ITU or it can be ICANN if ICANN plays it right. Until 
their alliance can enter the GCC as such (if it develops united enough) 
they would be better tying together in the ccSO.

If they develop as registries only, their needs, concerns, are technically 
and legaly very much like gTLDs (NSI depends on the US law, as AFNIC on the 
French oneà.

If they develop - as I believe they should - as a service and as an 
animatior of the local internet community (including the @large and the 
registrants to the other TLDs) and develop additional international 
services or support some moTLDs, then they will stay specific and important 
and interesting enought to join at GCC level as a group.

>Q3. Re the States and UN TLDs, GAC is again mentioned as
>a coordinating body. Can you explain what are the differences
>between GAC and GIC+GCC in this context?

Govs have the power. They can act through the ITU (operations) or through 
their law. GAC is the place for every govs to concert and the GCC the place 
for the GAC, ITU, ICANN and other main sub-namespaces to talk together.

The .ZA situation can be good, bad, neutral for many. This kind of move 
should have been auto regulated through an equal level conference.

Now, the Govs owns legimacy over their national namespace (three letters 
code of ISO 3166, X121 DNICs national area, etc). What they may do with 
this belongs to them as long as they do not release it under some 
deregulation act. This is true for ".eu" too, like the Congress over "kid.us".

Their common DN (.Int) is also something they will probably want to address 
in comon. But nothing prevent them to decide of intergovermental 
sub-namespace, as they did for a tribunal for war crime.

>Q4. RE sTLDs, you here proposed GIC again for coordination.
>What makes you think sTLDs should be coordinated by GIC+GCC
>while gTLDs should be coordinated by ICANN.

This is the nature of the things, the delegation agreement and the need of 
the people.

A sTLD is not network oriented. It is thematicaly, community oriented. It 
needs support. So it must belong to an organization supporting it. 
Basically the difference I see between pseudo and true sTLDs is to know if 
the DN is lifelong and free or not. If the focus is on selling/reneiwing 
DNs and transfering is OK, then it is a gTLD in disguise. It belongs the 
ICANN culture and it will be better there.

Otherwise it will be a different culture and logic and it needs to agregate 
to a convenient different ad-hoc structure (the Intlnet we create, the 
nomenclatures, New.net, TLDA, ect.). These will form the GIC as they have 
much in common. There can be other structures. The real issue is that ITU 
(lower layers) does not take over the diversity of the upper layers. 
Otherwise it would notwork for long.

FYI the extended network system model (1985) uses 13 layers:
0 is hardware
1-7 is ISO : telecom
8: inter-applications
9. system operators (computers, secretary, telemates)
10. the user etc.
11. communicating structures
12 is Govs.
The model is a cylender with:
0, 8 and 12 levels are plain, others have a central pole:
- a 1 to 7 sotware pole relating 0 to 8
- a 9 to 11 brainware pole relating 8 to 12

>I want to explore various proposals as much as possible in an open
>manner whether new proposals can bring us values to not only
>make "Internet is for everyone" but also make "power to decide
>Internet policies for everyone".

The real issue is the brainware (the way people [are made to] think the 
system works). We do not want to to be only controlled by MS. I prefer a 
huge digital divide rather than an Internet only under IE. I agree that 
people must have the power to decide, but this calls for a choice to 
exsit.  Today the choice is between the same architecture soon to be 
dominated by MS and already dominated by VRSN, ATT, IBM, ex-WorldCom to be 
controlled by either the NTIA, either the DoC, either the GAC. I want it 
dominated by the @large, animated by the ccTLD under the protection of 
their Govs.


What we need today is to understand that the issue is the URI as our 
central command to interact with our e-reality and progressively with all 
our reality. The one who owns of free its management dramactically affects 
the world.

This comes through a DNS+ architecture and DNS.2 specifications.

ccTLDs can help but cannot decide about technology. This is to be made by 
the IETF. But ccTLDs and Minc and Ainc and hopefully new Eurolinc can do a 
lot of things on the operational and on the political sides. One is to 
prevent the unicode plug-in to be unique and to refer the all the searches 
to VRSN/MS engines. Another is to join in a parallel assynchronous root 
system and extended services experimentation : it only costs one single 
Pentium and sharing in an interesting mailiing list.

jfc

>===============================================
>
>1.
>a member of an "ICANN, ITU,+"  Group. As the ITU shares the same
>need on the same issue. ICANN, GAC and ITU should be joined in the
>Global Communication Committee (GCC). Global Internet Committee,
>GIC is the key of the whole solution because otherwise its potential
>members will aggregate within the ITU to get protected from the ICANN, s
>ince the ICANN is not able/does not want to welcome them.
>
>ICANN + GIC will form the value added level (layer 7-11 in the
>Extended network model). Under the GAC (12h layer) and on top of
>the network level (layer 0-7).
>
>2.      the ccTLDs are part of their national communities.
>The ccTLD alliance(s) should be member of the GIC and maintain
>close relations with ICANN as they today share too much in term of
>user registration culture. (That culture will meet a lot of changes with
>the evolution of the use of the URL).
>
>3.      the gTLDs are (cf. RFC 920) the area of direct administration of 
>ICANN (IANA).
>The gTLD Constituency should be member of the GCC ICANN delegation.
>
>4.      the States and UN TLDs (eu, edu/mil/gov, int) should be represented
>through the GAC but could form a Public TLD group.
>
>5.      the sTLDs are a mixed area and should be split between registration/
>support services business operations like SITA and NCDNHC for non-profit
>communities like ".sioux".
>
>The non-ITU Members and the non-profit community should be Members of
>the GIC. This will include the open root TLDs and New.net. Obviously the BC
>will include Members in competition.
>
>6.      The large nomenclatures (ISSN, ISBN, WIPO, OMS, etc.) should
>progressively become members of the GIC.
>
>Any other scheme will fail because this only a description of the forces and
>interests at stake, the way things are currently organizing even if ICANN, 
>ITU,
>GAC may not realize it.
>
>The only problem we have is that the sub-network ".arpa" has become too
>large for a while and this is to be corrected. Some think it will be 
>corrected
>by an Internet becoming everything while the rest of the world think the
>Internet is over doing it, has already paid a lot at listening to the 
>Internet
>enthusiasts and are not ready for a second Internet shock.
>============================================
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 24/07/02