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

todd glassey todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jul 29 16:14:30 CEST 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey at club-internet.fr>
To: "YJ Park" <yjpark at myepark.com>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Cc: <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>; <andy at ccc.de>; <Amadeu at nominalia.com>;
<karl at cavebear.com>; <froomkin at law.miami.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 5:11 AM
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re : [Implementation of Evolution and Reform]
Another Exploration?


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) .

EXCEPT WHEN THE ITU'S SERVICES VIOLATE LOCAL REGULATION, TREATY, OR LAW.

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).

WHY IS IT NECESSARY THAT THERE ONLY BE ONEGLOBAL NAMESPACE. THIS IS A
MISNOMER AND LIE LEFT OVER FROM THE OLD DAYS WHEN THE ARPANET AND NSFNETS
WERE SMALL ENOUGH TO EXIST UNDER A SINGLE ROOT, BUT TODAY'S INTERNET CANNOT
POSSIBILITY DEAL WITH THE IP NAME-ISSUE'S AND NAME COLLISSIONS WITHOUT BEING
ABLE TO OPERATE MULTIPLE ROOTS.

PERSONALLY, I THINK  THAT ITS  THE ARROGANCE THAT REFUSES TO ADDRESS THIS
AND FORCES THE ISSUES INTO A LARGER  FORUM, THAT IS REALLY THE KEY TO THE
DETRIMENT NOW FACING THE GROWTH AND NATIONALIZATION OF THE VARIOUS
INTERNETS.


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 oneĆ .

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





More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list