[atlarge-discuss] Re:Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Good afternoon, Todd:

    I thank you for your clear reasoning that South Africa (and any other
country or enterprise, or individual for that matter) does not need to defer
to ICANN (or, I guess) any other entity in order to conduct fast,
transparent business over the Internet, using any naming convention that
they choose.

    Since you are convinced that this is the case, why are we forming an
organization to represent global user interests in dealings with ICANN and
other entities?

    If it is simply because there is a need for a co-coordinating body, and
that the incumbent organization (ICANN) is not sufficiently representative,
then aren't you really discussing one technical aspect of a greater problem?
One that makes today's news just as significant and our work just as
important.

Ron Sherwood

----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere


> Ron I would put it to the group that it is this commentary that seeks to
> "inhibit" the growth of the Internet and not the South African's. What the
> SA regime is tired of is putting up with having to be dot ZA. ICANN has
> basically shat all over the third world and still refuses to put in place
a
> reasonable IP representation system or to address the fact that they are
not
> the only game in town.
>
> Look - its simple math - you do it yourself and then tell us how it adds
> up:"
>
>     Q1    Who is responsible for what protocols are routed on the
Internet?
> ICANN? - Wrong the Network Operators.
>
>     Q2    If the Government of SA wants to setup its own ROOT ZONE and
offer
> to its people the entirety of its OWN dot COM, NET, or ORG, who is going
to
> stop them? ICANN? WorldNet? So who then? --- The only answer here is that
> they would need to come up with a way to bridge between Root Zones.
>
>     Q3    If the SA IT Managers say to the manufacturers that they needed
a
> notation form/ solution for expanding DNS such that it can represent
> multiple root zones simultaneously, they would respond "OK" and then
> implement this? So the question is "Does anyone care if the IETF picks it
up
> at that point?", I think that the answer is no.
>
> After all The PSO's are to be split off of ICANN as part of the reforming
of
> it anyway. My take is that if that is the case, then there is Study Group
#2
> of the ITU and they would love to handle this matter of adding Root Zones
> and a protocol to manage it to DNS, I already checked.
>
>     Q4    Perhaps then if ICANN cant get its act together to deal with the
> limited Marque Types that work on the Internet, and to increase the
> available domains, then what do we need them for anyway? Its groups like
> NANOG where the rubber of operating the Internet meets the road.
>
> So add them up - these are simple questions - and they all point to the
same
> place. That this Internet is not run by the ICANN, despite what anyone
would
> have you believe, and that we need to implement individual root zones and
a
> notation form to get us back and forth between them.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 12:14 PM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
>
>
> Dear fellow at-largers:
>
>     Today's report on the political battle over .za is copied below.
>
>     The claim that the majority of South Africans do not have access to
the
> Internet, has nothing whatsoever to do with Domain Name management.  It is
> simply political deception used to persuade the ignorant to accept
> nationalization of that management.
>
>     This could happen anywhere.  The first time that it does, the rot will
> have started.  The only way to keep the Internet from becoming another
> political franchise, subject to embargo and national exploitation is for
it
> to be controlled by a strong, organized, global, user based entity that
> crosses all political and national boundaries.  This should be our wake-up
> call and should define our mandate.
>
> Ron Sherwood
>
> S. Africa plans to control Net name
> Controversy stirs over who will control '.za'
> June 7, 2002 Posted: 10:39 AM EDT (1439 GMT)
>
>
> June 7, 2002 Posted: 10:39 AM EDT (1439 GMT)
>
>
> CAPE TOWN, South Africa (Reuters) -- South Africa's parliament gave
initial
> approval on Friday to a law designed to expand access to the Internet, but
> which critics say could force the network to shut down in the country.
>
> The Electronic Communication and Transactions Bill adopted by the National
> Assembly gives legal status to Internet communications, contracts and
> trades.
>
> But it also proposes to take over the administration of South African
> Internet domains, identified by the ".za" suffix in addresses, without
> seeking the approval of the international authority that administers the
> Internet roadmap.
>
> Nkenke Kekana, chairman of the parliamentary committee that approved the
> draft, told legislators the management of the Internet could not be left
to
> individuals.
>
> "Change is imperative...We need a stable, representative and democratic
> model of domain naming and allocation in our region," he said.
>
> Opposition legislator Dene Smuts accused the government of nationalizing
the
> administration of the .za suffix that identifies all South Africa Web
sites
> and addresses, saying the government was obsessed with "empire building
and
> control."
>
> Referring to warnings from Internet administrators that violation of
> international conventions on domain name management could see the South
> African section of the network shutdown, she told parliament:
>
> "This bill fails to avert the danger that we will lose South Africa's
major
> connection to the Internet itself...This net grab simply nationalizes
domain
> name administration," she said before voting against it.
>
> Domain names -- the ".com" and ".uk" type suffixes of addresses and Web
> sites -- are the foundation of Internet navigation. They have been subject
> to fierce competition with early users trying to claim addresses and
domains
> that might become valuable.
>
> Communications Minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri said the Bill would allow
the
> drafting of regulations to ensure that more and more South Africans would
be
> able to access the Internet.
>
> "For e-commerce to make an impact on sustainable economic growth, all
South
> Africans should become active participants in electronic communication and
> transactions," she said.
>
> Equal access
> Matsepe-Casaburri dismissed criticism of the proposed domain-name
takeover,
> telling parliament: "The sometimes hysterical and irrational debate on the
> issue of the domain name...is indicative of mindsets that have not yet
come
> to terms with the democratic government in existence today."
>
> The .za domain name is administered under a mandate from the international
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) by local
> Internet pioneer Mike Lawrie.
>
> Lawrie told Reuters earlier this week he was keen to be rid of the domain
> name administration he has handled without pay for a decade, but insisted
it
> had to be done under ICANN rules.
>
> He said a law making his administration illegal would conflict with ICANN
> rules requiring him and the Internet community of South Africa to approve
> redelegation of the role.
>
> "If it becomes illegal for me to do the job under South African law and if
I
> am not authorized by ICANN to hand over the administration, the .za domain
> will have to shut down until the issue is cleared up," he said in an
> interview.
>
> Lawrie oversees a series of computer files that are central to the South
> African Internet roadmap and would have to hand these to any future
> administrator. Without them, the South African network would have to be
> rebuilt from scratch.
>
> The bill proposes that Matsepe-Casaburri should appoint a panel to choose
a
> board for a new non-profit company that will take over the so-called
> "namespace administration."
>
> It does not provide for approval by ICANN, acknowledged around the world
as
> the global administrator of domain names.
>
> The independent Media Africa group estimates around 2.4 million of South
> Africa's 44 million people had access to the Internet by the end of 2000,
> leaving most of the black majority out of the network.