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

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

Todd

    There is a compelling logic to your arguments and the scale of your
vision is to be applauded. However, you do make the point that while the
Root Zone Protocol (RZP) required to enable multiple zoning is possible, it
ain't here now.  You further make the point that there is no entity with a
reason (read economic motive) to create either the RZP or the hardware
necessary to bring your vision to manifestation.

    Doesn't this leave us with the current problem where politicians will
take (are about to take) control of ccTLDs for political ends?  And (if I
read your messages correctly) with ICANN incapable of preventing them from
doing so.

    Don't you think that a strong, technically capable organization, which
is representative of the global user base, could have any influence on the
global structure that you envision? Even if that organization is forced to
represent the whole through national cells. Could this (should this) be our
organization.  If not, what are we doing?

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re:Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen
anywhere


> Ron
> Because there is a need to create a single critical mass - But this
critical
> mass needs to not be afraid of its constituents as ICANN is of us Internet
> Users... That's why a global Internet is still at least 20 years away.
>
> As to ICANN and its processes - I can see any number of Countries that do
> not have the wherewithal to build their own roots so they wouldn't - which
> means they are stuck with ICANN. That is until DNS is morphed so that it
can
> support multiple zones simultaneously. The I assure you there will be
Zones
> popping up all over.
>
> Also to make multiple roots work - we would need an Inter-Root
nomenclature
> system and a Root to Root query/switching system. All of this is easily
> doable though by the creation of a Root Zone Management Protocol. That
lives
> atop DNS (creates Locally and Globally Qualified Domain Names - that is
> Domain Names with and without Zone Names). The question is - who wants to
> build such a toy. Once there is this technical capability there will be no
> possible suppression of multiple roots.
>
> What cracks me up is that so many in this group still seem to think that
> ICANN actually controls the Internet. Its the Network Operators that
control
> the Internet today and no one else.
>
> When did ICANN ever make a decision of what was an was not to be routed?
Or
> what peering deals were in place, or aggregate back-hauling deals etc etc
> etc. The point is that the Carriers today are the Internet and until ICANN
> wrestles them into submission they will just be the DNS root management.
>
> Once multiple root capabilities are created, they wont be that anymore
> either.
>
> Todd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 1:43 PM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re:Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen
anywhere
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>


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