[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Another lawsuit against ICANN, to stop WLS
At 20:14 16/07/03, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
Abel,
I am willing to be educated. Please explain to me and the rest of us why
the implementation of a Wait List Service is an issue of concern to the
average Internet user.
Danny,
There are _many_ "small" reasons ranging from your business site being
removed from you by accident to your business name and TM being seriously
impacted by you signing your registration renewal. These can be disputed,
made a case in courts, etc. But basically there are three reasons for us to
oppose:
1. this increases the orientation of the legacy namespace towards a
merchant management what is something I oppose on technical and ethical
grounds.
2. this increases the independance of NSI from the legacy name space
management (ICANN) and of the common legacy rules. What is exactly the
countrary of the puprose of ICANN.
3. this increases by jurisprudence the US/ICANN decisionship for the global
network system what is by essence in an international system a technical, a
societal and a political error against the stability, the security and the
globality of the network.
I am not found of the current status of ICANN, but I acknowledge that Paul
Twomey permited already several practical achievements (spirit of the Staff
reorganization, ccTLDs, GAC, etc.). This might lead towards a different
organization of the Governance. In such an organization the legacy will
only be a part of the whole network space. By then I will have no objection
against NSI committing suicide or establishing the WLS (except that I
suspect there is there a real legal danger for TMs: as for many other
things IPC does not properly defend the long range rights of the TM
owners). But IMHO it is premature to endanger the stability and the image
of the two leading TLDs. Sometimes taking risks and pushing ahead may help
moving. I think in this case it is not. It creates an additional threat on
the network unity we do not need while we already have to address the
"internationalized divide" from the poor IDN support.
While I understand why the implementation of WLS would be a concern to
those offering competing services, I have yet to hear a convincing
argument as to why this should be a concern to the general user community.
There is nothing as the "general user community" defined in RFCs. In an
IAB/IETF environment where precise wording is very scarce let please stick
to the proven accepted and defined concepts which are building our
stability. There is a global internet community.
That GIC _is_ actually the internet: technically the internet are the links
through the no-man's land between its members. I accept that this makes
difficult to think of the internet as something by itself and to think of
the "interests of the internet" (as you may think of the interests of IBM
or of the USA). However these interests (unity, stability, reliablity,
security, scaling capacity, innovation support capacity, usability,
availability, economical interests, expansion, etc.) can be commonly
matched with the interest of the GIC at large.
The very nature of the @large is to look at _every_ positive or negative
impact, _eveywhere_ which may affect _anyone_ on the nets. Because in a
stable and balanced system any instability may degrade into a generalized
instability. Some of us are users, others are providers, in most of the
cases we are both (we have a site, we produc e-mails, etc;). Our interest
is to preserve the statu quo and to improve it.
The same as ICANN. Except that by nature, we talk about quality and they
talk about policy. Every time policy negatively impacts quality this is
something immediately against the interests of some of us but it is on the
long range against the whole of us. The same time when policy sustains
quality: what is good for some of us and not hurting the others, is good
for the whole community.
If you do not fight against _every_ instability factor, why would you fight
against any? We are talking of a network: you cannot chose what you like
and what you dislike to fight. Everything is tied.
However, I fully accept that the fault lies with IAB. The whole system has
no architecture, hence no doctrines of reference, no network quality
culture. What ICANN desesperately tried was to get if from us (the @large
election from Ira Magaziners dreams). Then to obtain it from the Govs
(Stuart Lynn's call). Then from he IETF and "Wise Men" (the ERC). The
mistake (IMHO) is that the whole internet US understanding (which is still
the leading one) is wrong for 30 years. It is perfectly described in 47 USC
230 (f)(1) (your law) which defines the internet as every federal and non
federal computer interoperated through packet swicht networks. This is a
binary approach making of the internet an inteconnexion system between
computers and users and founding the IT concepts your FCC tries right now
to actually fight the impact. As long as we do not understand that the
Internet is an internetting system networking networks together, which are
themselves in turn supporting machines and/or users of many kinds, we will
have all the technical, societal and political problems we face, starting
with DNS and IPv6.
It is very difficult to make a ternary system fit into a binary frame.
jfc
jfc
jfc
Thanks,
Danny
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/03
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de