[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Future
On 20:28 30/11/02, Alexander Svensson said:
Richard, I'm hearing you and I know that many others share
your point of view "let's keep outside the ICANN process".
The problem is that I have heard very little convincing
proposals how those people who want to keep outside the
ICANN process will try to influence the ICANN process.
this remark is half true: I am .. may be not proposing well, may be not
doing well, but I am proposing and doing.
1. the first proposition is http://dot-root.com. I certainly accept this is
something complex for many to understand and too slow to make a scoop every
day. I will however put anyone interested on the distribution list and you
may look at http://dot-root/pr.sht page to see that this are serious
matters. I would be more than glad to share with serious technicaly,
societaly, prolitcally competent people as some of the top ones are on this
That proposition is npt to influence ICANN. It is to test the life after
ICANN, to document how it works and permit the international network
community to evolutate in the proper way. Forget ICANN execept as the
Legacy space manager (the space we agreed to allocate them uin 1984 and
they never changed since then except though the 2000 pathetic 6+1 TLD
allocation and the 2003 3 TLD rumors).
2. the second proposition is atlarge/ws, to progressively switch from an
ICANN centric focus to a real life @large governance Member network group,
in just supporting its cristalization. A real life where ICANN related
issues will be addressed together wih probably much more important ones. I
long said that my only slogan for ICANN was "get real". You may note that
it is now Esther's leit motiv. Takes time but simplest thing get through
smart brains sometimes.
May I remind you that there is a survival process engaged by the largest
eocnomico/military power of the planet to revise the DNS, IPsec and the
Network Gateway Protocols (ie to rebuild the Internet) in a stable and
secure way. This will most probably/realisticly compatible with Windows
2005 (Longhorn) ie totally incompatible with everything we use today. What
some have called a necessary e-colonization logic (you cannot make the
Internet globally secure without controlling it). What we all need to
address in making the USG (ie the White House) understand that "global"
does not mean US governed, but every Gov together. Not a NORAD command but
The US global vision was not born in Stuart Lynn call. It was born in the
1780s. The US network concepts were not born in late 1960s. They were born
in the Secession war, with a strong central Federal concept killing a lose
and open confederal culture. So we will not do anything within ICANN. We
must keep in touch, but the real thing is to make the White House
understand. As we had to make them understand in 1940/1941.
Europe today carries the confederal, subsidiarity, equal right and respects
values the Internet people want and need. USA are not against them, but
they face a real danger because people who designed the Internet protocols
were no fools in spite of what some USG people may say, but USG people who
supported the Internet development with such protocols were stupid
ignorant. The first thing I learned in 1977 when entering datanets was "to
make money in this area you can use every technology but Arpanet one". Not
because it is that bad, just because it is the first try and all the other
ones improved over it. The only way we can make them understand is to make
them relax in showing we also are serious at it, and touch where are true
long term stability, security and innovation capacity.
It is not in the IETF which produced the protocols patch stack, but in the
real world testing (dot-root) and in the @large real community.
There are not in IETF, a place which has not yet understood that a network
is brainware first. Would you feel secure with your Compaq PC if Compaq was
telling you that what matters is the hardware and they do not care about
software? This is what IETF tells us: "nevermind brainware, never mind
there are 600 millions of brains around using the same system as yourself,
this has no impact". You want to know the true IETF problems: "is the
Internet 7 or 8 bits?", "how to permit IETF to decide if anti spam
solutions are tobe discussed before the spam on IETF lists kills the IETF".
Not in a place like ICANN which has not understood the way 600 millions
user brains understand and want to use the DNs, and which want only to
manage the way a few purses consider them.
May be I am not convincing. So I keep trying to get a result so the result
convinces you. But frankly I think we would go faster and better if you
gave us an hand (you would be good at it and you would most probably enjoy
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com