Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Ron may be right about the South African Governments Intent, but it really
makes no difference to the bigger picture. The concept of the Global
Internet and a One Earth Network is still 20-50 years away I think. And is
more political and based in the need for Countries to enforce their
boundaries than in technologies. The other mitigating factor is that the
persona that ICANN puts forth, especially with all the in-fighting going on
visibly below it, is that the proposed "management of the Internet" is
equally incompetent.

Ron, its not that the one-world idea is bad, its just that as a race, we  as
a global culture are not ready yet for this love-peace-knowledge picture of
the Internet. Until organizations like the UN willing accept the
responsibility for global peace and the creation of a Terran Bill of Rights
or a definition of the Human Birthright here on Earth of which this Internet
is an integral part, we will have these problems.

---

To that end I propose that the only smart thing to do is to not fight the
establishment's and let them go onward with compartmentalizing and creating
eBorders from the Internet's networking model. To do this will really piss
ICANN off since it means that they failed. Not that their vision was wrong
individually, but that collectively they couldn't get their act together,
and so now others will step in and take over as with what SA is proposing.

My personal feeling is that it will take the restructuring of layer two and
three to accommodate but this solves many mechanical issues that ICANN was
unable to address - the technology is simple...

    1)    If a Root Zone based query/response model is erected atop DNS then
we will have capability for a truly interoperable infrastructure.

    2)    If the layer-2/layer-3 Internet is compartmentalized into
definable areas and eBorders are allowed to become a reality, then obviously
a NAT style gateway between each eBorderd DNS Tree could have its own
individual address space...

    3)    The creation of a flattened "global Area" in the area constrained
by #1 and #2 gives us global network interoperability...

So lets see:    #1 solves the need for more domain names... Each DNS Zone
can have its own unique set of TLD's; #2 solves the availability of IP
Addresses since each eBordered zone would have its own IPv4 space and talk
to the global Internet Interconnect though a well-knows set of addresses.

What more do we need?

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
To: <eric@hi-tek.com>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere


Good morning, Eric,

Eric wrote:

>Dear Ron,

>Ron Sherwood wrote:

>> 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.
>
>Please show us where you get this information.  It may not be their
>fault but it may welll be their creation.

The story came from the Reuters wire service with a June 7, 2002, Cape Town,
South Africa dateline. It was also covered on CNN.



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