Re: [icann-eu] 'The nuclear arsenal'

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Marc,

At 13:45 24/11/00, you wrote:
>For those who read UK English, there is an analysis of the role the
>ccTLDs have in the future of ICANN at:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/14950.html
>This article seriously looks at the option of routing around ICANN.

This article is quite exact on many points. However it does not
mention two important points:

-  ccTLDs are united about their relations towards the ICANN. This
    does not precludes them to have other points of divergence about
    their local management. So the main point was to detach the
    "Best Practice" from the contract proposed to the ICANN and to
    have the amount to be paid to the ICANN in appendix to the contract
    body. This way there was no more difference needed in the contract
    text proposed to the ICANN, making their agreement very strong
    about the points in that article and about a demand of warranty
    about network stability.

    This means that if the ICANN and ccTLDs positions again are very
    tough (as indicated in the article) they are not conflicting, if ICANN
    accepts a CCSO and the TLDs in the RSSAC (route server system),
    and a simple and fair payment grid. Now, there is already a Pacific
    oriented ccTLDs++ organisation which is the MINC (multinational
    domain names) which recently investigated an independent root
    to support these names.

-  MicroSoft is an important player to consider. Obviously MS has
    decided to take over ".net" (in naming ".Net" its main Internet
    product). This means an increased power of NSI and may be
    an alliance Robert Beyster's people/Bill Gates. The impact on
    the strategy described by this article is obvious: creating an
    alternative net is fine, but who would be the leader in the USA
    (".us" is not quite used) and on ".com", ".net", ".info"? On
    whose side would it be?  The interest of everyone is that the
    issue is over by the Melbourne meeting. Exciting!

-  as said to Alexander, the two chairs (Trush and de Blanc) are
    certainly trusted by ccTLDs. Vint Cerf and Mike Roberts are
    certainly a match. The @large Directors may also help a lot :
    this list is read by many. This sounds like a contest: it may
    really be like a team, we have elected Andy at the ICANN,
    the other @large Directors represent us, so in a way the ICANN
    is our's.

>Conclusion: "We're not exaggerating when we reckon that the next few
>years of Internet governance now rests with the country code reps,
>who'll decide whether they want to stay inside the tent, or decide
>that it's cheaper and less bothersome to have their own root
>system. Taking many of us with them."

Few months.

The bill have to be footed: Petter Dengate Trush said no more
money from Pacific until this is solved. The delay in getting the
new President delays the DoC team creation (in any case Becky
Burr was leaving) and preparation.

Unless the ICANN wants to commit suicide, they should converge
and find a joint solution. A lot in Melbourne, and no more cheap
flights from Europe available !!!

Jefsey