What I see here is a radical difference in perspective.
We are just looking at things from very different paradigms.
I see the Internet, and the DNS as an edge controlled environment,
much like the economy which is certainly not centrally controlled
(anymore), such that the supposed ICANN central control model is
simply false from the beginning, just as centrally controlled
economies never were a good idea. This difference of perspective is
critical to understanding why we tend to disagree.
This is especially true for Protocols (IETF style) and DNS, where the
main protocols that make the Internet work are in fact lodged in the
computers on the edges of the net (IP/TCP-UDP/FTP-SMTP-HTTP-ETC) and
the DNS Name Resolvers (including local </etc/named.boot> files which
identify where each system thinks ther DNS ROOT is located.
It is a fiction that the ROOT must be defined and controlled by a
central authority, when the facts are that it can just as well be
defined by a cooperative coordination organization of the users of the
net. The requirement is that the results be coherent (no conflicts)
and be robust and be stable and be secure and be fairly administered.
It should also server well all the regions of the net. It should not
be the case the South American user's computers must resolve all DNS
TLD names using servers in North America, for example.
In my view, ICANN is going to struggle mightily (and already is) to
assert central contol, and eventually give up and revert to organizing
a dynamic edge controlled coordination system. Or, perhaps ICANN will
crash and burn, in which case I suggest that the Interent comunity
self organize a backup DNS ROOT coordination system to step in when
ICANN fails.
So this is why I and many others hesitate to snap to attention and do
what ICANN tells us to do. Especially when ICANN seems determined to
ignore many of us as being unimprtant fringe crazies. ICANN has done
a fine job so far of demonizing its opposition, in the name of
building consensus.
Since we can do something to back things up in case of ICANN failure,
we feel bound to to something about it.
And, if ICANN does not fail, I am sure that they will eventaully
figure out that each SO should have great latitude to work out their
own problems, within the general framework ooof required fair and open
processes overseen by ICANN.
This is a far cry from ICANN dictating all policy and procedures as
they are now attempting to do.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Thu, 24 Dec 1998 16:20:33 +0100:
}
}Let me also add that we have in any case another level of control, which is
}the FHP to be built within ICANN.
}In any case, DNSO decisions are subject to ICANN's authority, and therefore
}ICANN's FHP will be the ultimate appealing authority.
}
}Roberto
}
}> -----Original Message-----
}> From: Einar Stefferud [SMTP:Stef@nma.com]
}> Sent: 23 December 1998 08:32
}> To: David W. Maher
}> Cc: participants@dnso.org; discuss@dnso.org; domain-policy@open-rsc.org
}> Subject: Re: Our draft
}>
}> Fine with me if your bylaws make the Names Council serve as a Fair
}> Hearing Panel, buit I see no such bylaws clauses or intentions to sadd
}> such to the current drafts.
}>
}> In short, I have no confidence that your DNSO.ORG or the INTA bylaws
}> will produce an organization that will give equality of fair hearing
}> to all concerned!
}>
}> Cheers...\Stef
}>
}>
}> From your message Tue, 22 Dec 1998 22:43:13 -0600:
}> }
}> }Hi Stef:
}> } If the Fair Hearing Panels are merely advisory, what do they do that
}> is
}> }different from what a properly constructed internationally representative
}> }Names Council will be doing anyway?
}> } I agree that maximum use should be made of the Internet and email,
}> and I'm
}> }all in favor of thinking outside the box. It's just that I don't see that
}> }one more level of organization does any good in this situation.
}> } Merry Christmas
}> } David
}> }At 10:40 PM 12/21/98 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}> }>Hewllo David -- In my view, Fair Hearing Panels are advisory in
}> }>nature, and my notion of letting regions appoint members to Fair
}> }>Hearing Panels is intended to serve the need to assure all regions
}> }>that they will get a fair hearing before the panel.
}> }>
}> }