Re: [ICANN-EU] IPv6, was: re-chartering this list: draft.

[lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Andy Mueller-Maguhn wrote:
> Form follows function; but the function of communication is to enable
> exchange of views. I wish we could agree, that any debate we have here
> must make sense itself and not be a tool for "I am better than you am
> cause I know more" games.

Sorry for playing another round. I do not want to have an European director
without the necessary knowledge.

>> The problems we face now with the DNS system are nearly 100% externally
>> caused (mostly by a mix of bad court decisions and legal theories and
>> bad administrative practice), and we can create new TLDs until we are
>> blue in the face, these problems won't go away.
>
> Objection.

*grin* Which internal problems do exist? (A flat namespace is hard to
manage, especially in terms of server performance and necessary bandwith. The
hierarchical approach of DNS solved it. I already posted a possible solution
and will implement it. This will cause a different set of root-NS not longer
controlled by ICANN.)

> I agree about the reasons for the current problems, but not, that new
> TLDīs couldnīt solve any problems. I could imagine that new TLDīs take
> place under there own rules, policies and legal theories. So, next to the
> (not so new) idea of a TLD ".TM" for the trademark-owners, i could

Did you ask the Turkmenian people how they feel about your clueless proposal?
Did you ask your lawyer at the corner if such a TLD would stop him from
sueing other domain holders?

> imagine ".GPL" for everything under gnu public-license. We could even
> expand these to cultural and religious spaces, like ".ISLAM" (btw, they
> have no copyright & patent-laws ;), ".catholic" for everything under
> Catholic policy and so on.

Great! :-( Which problems are solved by this scheme?
microsoft.gpl, holy-war.islam, ...

If you consider a filtering system based on those TLD, please come back to
the surface ... there is more oxygen than in your current place.

> Planet earth is big and I donīt see any reason for putting american
> policies and/or centralised ICANN decisions on the whole cultural and
> economic space internet.

Please tell me where American policies influence the ccTLDs. Please point me
to the influence points on eu.int.

If you really object a centralized ICANN, so please tell me how and when do
you want to change the institution you are candidating for. It would be
important to know.

> So, for it might be quiete difficult, to break up the rules on the
> current TLD`s, it might be a good way to create some new ones under those
> policies and so show up alternatives.

Let me repeat that slowly: You want to change the current rules for the
existing TLDs?!

Based on which contracts do you want to do so? Where should the power to
create policies violating national and international law come from?

(BTW: īs != 's != `s != s, sorry, part of my job is typography.)

>> Another example is Jeanette's ideas abou how standardization works.
>> Lutz very early made the point that the authority of organizations like
>> ICANN derive from the technical quality of their results. Bad standards
>> are not accepted in the market. Again Jeanette disagreed, somehow, with
>> some fluff remarks on the influence of techs, without that I really
>> understood her counterposition.
>
> I thought you did agree, that the current TLD / namespace handling
> courtdecisions vs. UDRP/WIPO stuff is bullshit, but it is accepted in the
> market. So I have to disagree: just because a standard is bad, it doesnīt
> mean it is not accepted in the market.

Again you miss the point. Andy! I know you can do that better.
Christopher is talking about the fact, that ICANN is simply ignored, if
there decisions are technically questionable (they must not even be wrong).

You talk about the law situation. And I said, that ICANN has not and will
never has the power to change this. You are right on the bullshit (what
about your 'form follows content' thesis?) but miss the reason behind. The
market is IMHO irrelevant to law application. The current market in Germany
does require different laws, but they are modified independently.