Re: PAB be constructive.

K S LIM (ks_lim@logchina.com.sg)
Fri, 06 Feb 1998 14:53:18 +0930


Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> Folks, arguing with Jim is a pure waste of time. I don't suggest
> that you killfile him, but I do suggest that you not worry about
> replying to every argument he brings up.
>
> Regardless of his wishes, rough consensus is in the gTLD-MoU as the
> means by which PAB will arrive at decisions, and therefore we are
> compelled to follow that model. We are not going to change the voting
> policy unless *we* decide that we should. Such a consensus clearly
> does not exist, and, with the speed at which Jim is making friends,
> there is no possibility it ever well -- clearly, Jim's idea of
> consenus involves him having a very large club in a crowd of otherwise
> unarmed people.
>
> Jim asserts that the whole MoU effort will die if we don't follow his
> lead. This is false. A large influx of signatures would be nice, but
> it is neither a necessary or a sufficient condition for the MoU to
> survive.
>
> Far more important is to send comments on the Green Paper.
>
> There are several very large problems with the GP that you could
> consider incorporating into your comments.
>
> First: It perpetuates a monopoly that, according to recent legal
> decisions, may actually be illegal.
>
> Second: It ignores the fact that the MoU has a legitimate lineage,
> coming out of IANA, and that it did go through a protracted public
> development.
>
> Third: The GP itself has no legitimate legal status. IANA has de
> facto control of the root zone; the USG does not. The fact that IANA
> *was* funded by the USG is immaterial -- the USG abdicated some time
> ago. Besides, there is a distinction between funding and control:
> it is quite common for an activity to seek funding from various
> sources. Those sources may later decide to stop, but that just means
> you must search for other funding. It doesn't mean you must give
> over control.
>
> Fourth: Despite lip service, the USG has ignored international
> opinion. The recent EU announcement is evidence of that.
>
> Fifth: The GP perpetuates US economic control over the DNS
> by installing a subsidiary of a large defense contractor as the
> permanent monopoly over by far the largest TLDs.
>
> I would be interested in more things to add to this list, more
> details, and so on. Please comment.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
Dear Kent
Yes, I agree that this is the priority task now and we should not be
distracted from it. Your e-mail here is probably one of the few if not
the only one that merits the title.
However, in the light of what Perry had pointed out(that IANA no longer
depends on USG fundings and Jon can be independent), I suggest that we
should set up a task force to consider alternative if we fail to change
the GP. For example try to raise independent fundings for IANA with no
string attached and persuade/allow IANA to break completely from USG
influence.
Best regards.
-- 
KS LIM
LOGIC GROUP OF COMPANIES
545 ORCHARD ROAD, #08-04/05
SINGAPORE 238882
TEL:65-7330553,FAX:65-7333068
E-MAIL: ks_lim@logchina.com.sg
        kslim@singnet.com.sg