[ICANN-EU] Re: Reply from the founder of the NICANN proposal

["JIM FLEMING" <jfleming@anet.com>]

Rick,

Based on postings from the past few days, I think it should be
clear to people that few if any TLDs will be added to the legacy
root servers by ICANN. The CEO of ICANN has already set
the stage for that by telling people that ICANN does not operate
any root name servers. This tosses the hot-potatoe back to the
U.S. Government and the new administration under George Bush.

It is my impression that all the ICANN people really wanted to do
was get past Nov. 7th to see who would be calling the shots on
the legacy root name servers. Now they know. It is too bad that
some of the people do not like the result. It is very ironic that
William Daley is leading Al Gore's campaign to reverse the results
of the election. William Daley was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce
and the person ultimately responsible for the ICANN fiasco and
the other DNS debacles.

With respect to Ms. Esther Dyson. It is my impression that she
is not on the net. I question whether she ever really has been on the net.
If she was on the net, I would expect that she would be participating
in some discussions on the net. If she does that, please direct
everyone to that location. As an aside, I do not consider someone's
web-site to be them on the net.

I also find it interesting that people like John Patrick from IBM run
seminars and trade events and claim to "immerse people in the net".
If he and Ms. Dyson were immersed in the net, they would be swimming
in these oceans some place. It is my impression they are both standing
on the shore and rarely, if ever have been swimming.

Maybe Ms. Dyson and/or Mr. Patrick can tell us where they "immerse
themselves" in the net...?[1]

With respect to your proposals, can you summarize what you see as
the next steps and provide some URLs or keywords to plug into
http://www.google.com for searching ?


Jim Fleming
http://Register.WEB.com


[1]> http://www.internetpolicy.org/board/index.html
> http://www.gip.org/about/members.asp
>
> Tuesday, November 7, 2000
> http://www.gip.org/publications/papers/draftberlinworkshop.asp
> *Attendance is by Invitation Only*
> Introduction: GIP Chairman John Patrick, Vice President for Internet
> Technology, IBM
> Keynote Speakers:
> David Farber, Chief Technologist, U.S. Federal Communications Commission,
&
> Professor of Computer Science, University of Pennsylvania.
> Moderator: Vint Cerf, Senior Vice President for Internet Architecture &
> Engineering, WorldCom.
> Panelists: Fred Baker, Fellow, Cisco Systems, and Chairman, IETF
> Keynote Speaker: Esther Dyson, chairman, EDventure (Retiring Chairman,
> ICANN)
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Harris <RHARRIS1@BCONNEX.NET>
To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 9:22 AM
Subject: Reply from the founder of the NICANN proposal


> Reply from the founder of the NICANN proposal
>
> I have received many, many private replies to the concept I floated - to
> several lists -  with my request for thoughtful suggestions and/or advice.
> Most of the public replies posted to this particular list are neutral.
Only
> one reply was personal and negative. I will address Mr. Baptista's
personal
> comments because the factual public record requires this. His other
comments
> are not worthy of reply. There will be no further response from me -
ever -
> to anything Mr. Baptista has to say. I will then add some more detailed
> information to what I wrote yesterday.
>
> (1) I don't know anything about a "Count". I have never before heard of
> this. I know nothing about it - in any way, shape or form. Period. These
> comments from Mr. Baptista are to the best of my knowledge a fabrication.
>
> (2) Idexis Corporation (which I founded) is the only successful
applicant -
> that I know of at any rate - for a television broadcasting license in
North
> America- where the applicant also happens to be an accredited registrar of
> domain names. The related public record(s) can be found at (a) crtc.gc.ca
> and (b) cira. ca. Idexis is listed as an accredited registrar at cira.ca
and
> its application for a broadcasting license has been granted in Canada and
> can be found under the name of the applicant which is "Futurepod
> Television". Futurepod Television *is* a pending Category 2 digitial
> broadcast licensee in Canada. Since I am also a U.S. citizen a similar
> application will be going to the FCC. Futurepod Television allows
television
> stations (and therefore networks)throughout North America  to actually
> "address" their individual viewers - with advertising and  public interest
> information - through the secure, private and proprietary "personal online
> domains" or "PODS" of television viewers via the public internet. Idexis
is
> a Delaware Corporation and an Ontario Corporation.
>
> (3) My company did make an inquiry only for an FM broadcasting license. On
> the advice of legal counsel the license enquiry - not an application - it
> never got that far - was withdrawn because there was no reasonable
> possibility of success - given the programming format and the (then)
> audience priorities of the regulatory apparatus - which at the time was
> awarding the *last* available slot in the related market for an FM radio
> license.
>
> (4) Equivalent TLDs (eTLDs) are doable. There are in fact approximately
700
> SLDs that are master addresses that can be shared by subscribers.
> Registrants can purchase their "pods" in groups or "paks", such as a
3-pak,
> 6-pak, 12 pak and (24) Family pak of individual, proprietary and secure
> global addresses on the public internet. To the best of my knowledge the
dot
> pod aggregation in particular is the most comprehensive "thematic"
> aggregation of dot com addresses ever assembled. Because of the first
> come-first served approach to selling domain names in the open market, the
> Idexis aggregation of "personal online domains" is unlikely to be
> replicated.  The dot PIN and dot KIN aggregations have fewer numbers or
> "nodes".
>
> (5) The idea of private governance of the public internet - as in the
NICANN
> concept -  isn't a particularly new or even innovative suggestion. It is a
> stopgap measure that does not in any way question the legitimacy of ICANN.
> If I had thought there was any reasonable change of acceptance by ICANN of
> a proposal for dot POD in the existing root zone - I would have applied
for
> a new TLD myself - and in fact I asked this list several months ago for
100
> volunteers (Cafe 100) who would each contribute $500.00 and thus minimize
> the risk of losing $50,000. To this day I believe that the collective
wisdom
> and technical skills of some of the persons who post memos to this list
> might have resulted in an successful application. However, there were no
> takers - to my regret.
>
> (6) As to ICANN itself, the NICANN proposal should not be regarded as
> anti-ICANN. Legitimacy issues regarding governance of the public internet
> are beside the point - in the sense of the NICANN proposal. What I do see,
> however, is manifest unhappiness from a whole range of persons with
> apparently different political views who apparenmtly dislike the methods
of
> governance presently at work in ICANN. Personally I like Ms. Esther Dyson.
I
> have spoken on the phone with her and I have had occasional correspondence
> with her. For the public record Ms. Dyson has never- ever - been anything
> but completely professional and neutral in her dealings with me. Ms. Dyson
> has never ever discussed ICANN and in fact refused to discuss her future
> plans (which I asked herabout) - even after her announced resignation from
> the ICANN board. I have great respect for Ms. Dyson and I do not
disrespect
> anyone else acting on behalf of ICANN governance matters, because I do not
> have the facts and I do not know their minds.
>
> (7) Those 700 NICANN SLDs will be lost if at least a few people do not
rally
> around and give the concept a chance. Whatever its flaws, it appears to me
> to be more doable at the present time than other strategies. ORSC is an
> excellent alternative idea which I support. But it does not at least to me
> appear to be feasible  - from a political standpoint - at the moment.
NICANN
> on the other hand *is* doable, politically and logistically and
technically.
>
> (8) NICANN Corporation is open to a few brave souls who are at least
willing
> to try to do something that is *doable* given the present and unyielding
> constraints in the governance model. Please keep in mind that if even 700
> persons contributed $10.00 each every year - the NICANN aggregation
> of dot com SLDs can be kept - and managed and built upon -certainly for
the
> forseeable future.
>
> (9)The models have been tested and they work within reason. Can they be
> improved? Yes- they can! Dotster in Kelso, Washington flew people to
Toronto
> to discuss the models with me before deciding to bail out of the Afilias
> consortium. NSI lawyers refused to sign the NDA associated with the models
> because the NDA contains a no-compete clause.
>
> (10) Personally I do not dislike NSI or ICANN or any other entity. They
all
> have merits. If anyone has a getter idea - or wishes to improve on the
> NICANN proposal - I welcome them. Those who have nothing to offer - except
> insults and derision are in fact not welcome. NICANN and its assets are
> available to be shared with any person who wishes to view the models and
> provide constructive criticism and/or assistance. eTLDs work! They are a
> suitable - if not necessarily the best - alternative to the present
> governance dilemma. ORSC in my view also works. God bless them! And in
fact
> I would be willing to donate the assets of NICANN to ORSC - in order to
> build on the strengths of both - if ORSC wishes to discuss it further. I
> will be posting further comments to this list as things relating to NICANN
> progress - especially in view of the fact that (apparently) many if not
most
> of the present ICANN applicants for TLDs will be turned down. I will
invite
> those applicants to share their knowledge - in order to get the eTLDs up
and
> running - as an interim measure - and then perhaps have a go at ICANN or
its
> successor (if any) at some later date with a view to having PODS (.POD) in
> particular introduced inside the SOA root and sanctioned by ICANN or its
> successor.
>
> Finally - anyone who wishes to further discuss the NICANN project can send
a
> memo to me off list and in absolute and complete confidence that their
> identity will be respected and kept private. The fax number (for NICANN)
is
> 905-729-0966.
> Thank you.
> Rick Harris (Dr.)
>