Re: [atlarge-discuss] An opportunity to help

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all fellow members,

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> On 06:19 04/06/03, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
> >What is probably called for is the development of a set of "Best Practices
> >for ISPs" that has the blessing of ICANN's ISP
>
> This is an important issue. It should not be left to best practices.
> ICANN's mandate is to warranty the stability of the legacy name space. This
> kind of practice is probably the first cause of instability. It mainly
> results from a wrong understanding of the domain name nature as a product
> sold to the registrant instead of being a service to the user to locate the
> internet presences of a registrant.
>
> There are several ways of lobbying for that:
>
> 1. one is to develop the http://uniname.org project which targets to
> aggregate the DNS into the initial GNS (generalized naming system) for
> e-networks and into the UNS (Universal naming System). Rules established at
> the UNS or GNS systems layers, if not respected at the DNS layer, then
> become exceptions that ICANN will have to document and may be defend.

  All of these are potentially good alternatives.  They MAY work
as approaches to initiating change.  They also all will cost
significant $$ which this fledgling organization does not have,
cannot adequately collect presently, and has not shown the will to
even attempt to collect such moneys.  As such, these potential
"Lobbying approaches" as you put it are moot.

>
>
> 2. another one is to produce a draft RFC for information at the IETF on the
> nature and of the life long character of the user names. The various
> problems created by the coming in of the IDNs permit to do that. As Chair
> of the Eurolinc-WG-IDN I am certainly interested in any cooperation to
> jointly write such a draft. It will then serve to challenge ICANN on the
> DNS technical stability issue.

  There is not stability issue with the DNS presently.  There ARE
security, privacy and usability issues in respect to the DNS presently.
What precisely are the stability issues you are eluding to with
the present DNS?

>
>
> 3. another one is to make direct pressure on the economy of the Registry
> industry through attractive offers to the users in the free and value added
> registration services area. In particular through scTLDs.
>
> 4. The Marrakech Resolution of ITU opens interesting avenues in that area
> we certainly want to develop. An interesting idea would be to have ccTLDs
> contracts made quadrilateral to include ITU-T in order to warranty the
> support of the Telco industry to the use and the development of ccTLDs.

  The ITU is no friend to the stakeholder/user community.  Never
has been, and is unlikely to ever be.  Hence we need instead to be
working to counter the ITU and the ITU-T in particular.

>
>
> Globally the target is that the real owner of a DN (and not his accepted
> trustee) is acknowledged as the designated target of the calls using his
> domain name, life long and not year long + being subject to disagreement or
> failure of a merchant or cover. This goes through a change from WhoIs to
> QuiEst (documentation on the web by the registrant to the users), a
> replacement of registration by a declaration, a universal right to naming,
> a drastic enlargement of the number of TLDs, etc. We have to realize that
> however conservative steps may partly address the problem, the solution is
> as drastic as I describe it and that ICANN knows it. Changing the DN legal
> equilibrium is endangering the very existence of ICANN.

  ICANN's existence or relevance has been in jeopardy for some
time now.  This was hinted at in the last go around for the
renewal of the ICANN contract last september in the warning
that Nancy J added in that temporary renewal.

>
>
> So, no real action can develop if the survival of ICANN is not first
> addressed and ICANN is documented an attractive position in such a scheme
> (where money will not come anymore from Registries). If we do not develop
> such a scheme, there will be no response. With some serious @large of this
> community and from other groups we have engaged that kind of quadruple action.

  True.  But first thing first.  And that means that first, there must
be a legitimate @larege.  This fledgling organization does not
meet the basic criterion for being legitimate in almost every respect.
Hence to address adequately as you rightly suggest, is really out
of reach for this fledgling organization to attempt.  Maybe someday.

>
>
> jfc
>
> -----------------------------------b---------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de