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

[eric@hi-tek.com]

We appear to be all on the same page just reading it from different
perspectives.  This is a very good thing.

As to this discussion and how it relates directly to the atlarge and elections;

Open discourse and global participation is a very critical element of working
internets.

As to what is good for a particular country, that is for them to decide.

As to what the role of the atlarge should be that is for us to decide.

Perhaps us internet workers have failed our developing countries in not
educating them well enough on the prospects and needs of an internet.  Perhaps
the blindness going on in SA is a result of our failure.  Perhaps it is a result
of a commonality of ccTLD managers to run serfdom's and closely gaurd their
goodies using obscure knowledge as a basis for power and not implementing
educational programs.  I am not a judge or a jury.
But I do know that without a broad "education is marketing and marketing is
education" concept, developing nations lose their ability to grow.  Maintaining
the country's internet as a resource means spreading its' use and demanding its'
contributions.  From here infrastructure has a chance and usage will blossom.

We must lead by example and by an unprecedented devotion of time in order to
help the worlds' vast majority to become connected and/or benefit by that
connectivity.  I believe that while there may be some areas of contention Dr.
Joe Baptista is beginning this dialogue with our sisters and brothers in SA.  We
can further this notion and in parallel help to establish a voting atlarge group
there in SA.

As to my group we are developing means to use commercialization to help bridge
this great divide.  We are using internet cafes (or generically Public Internet
Access Sites) - to date over 600 to market knowledge, we have a survey force of
over 30 and we are growing. With this we will touch an average of thirty
thousand a day that do not own a home computer.
In this case we work with a State run ccTLD and a state employed ccTLD manager.
It has cost us almost a million dollars and my life for two years.  But the
result is; we have been a small part in creating the most prolific internet
usage in the world.  We have designed this so that it may be transplanted,
adopted or given to other countries (or in commercial parlance it may be
franchised).  Infrastructures cannot be increased without increased usage and
that takes education which boils down to marketing the internet, inside to
outside and outside to inside.

There are no easy answers either behind or ahead but there is a lot of hard
work.

Sincerely,
Eric


Ron Sherwood wrote:

> 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


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