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

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

Where is your part of the net ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp


----- Original Message -----
From: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>
To: JIM FLEMING <jfleming@anet.com>
Cc: Rick Harris <RHARRIS1@BCONNEX.NET>; <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>;
<DFARBER@FCC.GOV>; Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>; <council@dnso.org>;
icann-europe <icann-europe@fitug.de>; <krose@ntia.doc.gov>;
<patrick@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Reply from the founder of the NICANN proposal


> One of the principles of the Net is diversity.  All I can say is that I am
> on the Net as much as I want - not as much as someone else prescribes.....
> Moreover, my part of the Net is evidently  different from your part of the
Net.
>
> Esther
>
> As some panelist once observed at the end of a long day: "Everything has
> already been said, but not everyone has yet had a chance to say it!"
>
> At 09:34 AM 11/12/00 -0600, JIM FLEMING wrote:
> >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.)
> >>
> >
> >
>
> HIGH-TECH-FORUM, BARCELONA, NOVEMBER 1 TO 3
> http://www.edventure.com/htforum2000.html
>
> Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --  1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com                    http://www.icann.org
>
> PC Forum: 25 to 28 March 2001, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>
>
>