>[..]
> > As Kent already replied, this seems to be the easiset, fastest and cleanest
> > solution under current constraints (ie, ICANN's note on SOs), if not the only.
>
> A note from those people is now a "constraint" on the Internet community? I beg
> to remind you that the U.S. Government told the Internet community to
> self-organize, not to take orders from five people about what they have to do.
> Are you abdicating your role as a representative of the DNS interests? If so,
> then say so and let others do it. If you are a servant of a Washington lawyer
> and the ex-VP of EFF, then you don't merit the trust that the White Paper put in
> you: to self-organize and self-regulate the Internet.
>
Michael,
* I think that the whole ICANN/SO design is comletely out of scope and
proportion and that we are leading into an excessively bureaucratic framework
* Accordingly, I am sure that the best (but not only) solytion for DNSO is
being part of ICANN.
* I tend to have personal ideas on nearly everything, not only in the two
points above, but here I am not to defend them. Instead I try to serve the
interests of Nominalia (a registrar), CORE (an association of registrars AND a
model for a gTLD registry). Their interest is having a working DNSO ASAP. And
the best one the cirucmstances can allow.
* I do not represent the DNS interests, but I try to figure out what is best
for the DNS arena in genral, and most specially, what serves best the work and
credit put into the DNSO effort by all participants. I think that all of us
agree that we are not exctly under an ideal situation, but we are willing to
play along it, thoug. I think we all want a succesfull DNSO, and if
incorporating it eases the way I am not going to kill it down just becuase *I
know* that in the scale of DNSO perfection, incorporation is down by a number
of factors to our previous working assumption.
* If you remember the Monterrey meeting, this was debated at some legnth, and
the conclusion was that "it was our working assumption" that DNSO would not be
a separately incorporated entity. You will also remember that the main reason
for poutting it in this way was that ICANN was hinting in that direction AND
that most of us clearly said that we could live with either way. So nobody is
betraying any principle here, Michael. Just *my* preferneces, in my particular case.
* As for accepting "orders" or "constraints" from legitmated or illegitimated
parties, let me sya that I am a million times more willing to take orders form
the ICANN Board than from any US civil servant or gorvernmental agency. I will
never deny the USGov the power to dictate some solutions to the Internet
commynity (or to bom Iraq). They have the power and they tend to use it. But I
will never accept that they have nay legitimacy to do so.
* Finaly, don't forget that it is precisely the whole NTIA-centered process
resulting in the White Ppaer that brought us the "Grand Plan" of a
complicated, expensive and alargely unneeded bureaucracy not only for the DNS,
but also, and even with less reason, to the IP addresses and protocols areas.
So, once more Michael, we agree on the facts (we both prefer a simpler,
liathweight, non-incorporated DNSO). But as sometimes happens, we seem to
disagree on tactics: you are willing to make this into a question of
pricniples and a test of the relative stenght of CANN and the future DNSO (if
I read you well), while I am not willing to do it as Istill cnsider the
incorporation issues relatively secondary.
Best regards. And Bon Nadal, if we don't cross any other posting before
Christmas (whcih seems unlikely, anyway ;-))
Amadeu