Re: [ga] ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domain name s

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > We chose not to enter into technicalities in our official statement
> > because it is not our role to provide technical advice to ICANN - the
> > corporation has other advisory committees for that purpose.
>
> I disagree.  It is important to be able to support opinions with a solid
> foundation of facts and to articulate the logic that turns those facts
> into policies.

  Agreed!  However Karl as you know these solid facts have been
presented a number of times.  Why is it necessary to repeat those
same technical facts and or other methods again?

>
>
> In that way can we get ourselves out of endless head-butting and into the
> realm of rational discourse over the trustworthyness of the facts and the
> rationality of the logic and an understanding (and mutual respect) of the
> different value systems that lead some of us to start from the same facts
> and end up at different places.
>
> We are all guilty, myself included, in sometimes acting with more
> emotional heat than rational light.

  True. Yet when the presented arguments have been presented
repeatedly and the same less than rational responses are regurgitated
from ICANN'ites fallaciously, it sometimes required a more emotional
emphasis included in future or follow-up discourse..

> p
>
> However, we ought not to intentionally step into the darkness of
> opinion unsubstantiated by hard facts and logic.
>
> > This does not mean that "we do not have the knowledge to understand"
> > the topic on a technical level. Ok, I've never operated a registry,
> > but I have been administering Internet-connected systems for the last
> > eight years. Same applies to other ALAC members.
>
> Sounds to me like you have the technical chops to come up with some good
> foundation stones for the conclusions.  ;-)
>
> I believe that in this issue we can come up with some pretty reasonable
> qualitative, and perhaps even quantitiative, measures of the affect of
> Versign's wildcarding on traffic flows, response time, packet congestion
> at exchange points, loss of efficiency of anti-spam mechanisms, loss of
> precision in the delivery of mail, and the potentiality of Versign
> obtaining some rather privacy-revealing information about e-mail flows.
>
> There is another set of issues that this situation has raised that go
> beyond the technical - and that is the larger question of what is ICANN's
> role and what is a socially sound balance between private innovation and
> the public utility of the net.
>
> I'm sure you've seen my "First Law of the Internet" in which I propose a
> first cut at such a balance:
>
> First Law of the Internet
>
> + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is
>   privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
>
>    - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who
>      wish to prevent the private use.
>
>        - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence
>          of public detriment.
>
>    - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify
>      the suppression of the private activity.
>
> Might I suggest that use that structure as a way to think our way through
> the Versign wildcard issue.  It would go something like this
>
>   a) We begin by articulating our goals (e.g. what is "stability" - I'll
>      resuggest my formulation from the other day:
>
>     I define ICANN's obligations of "stability" to be to maintain
>     the net in a condition such at IP packets may move with reliabily
>     and with dispatch from any source IP address to any destination IP
>     address, and that DNS queries processed by the upper tier of DNS
>     servers are answered reliably, promptly, and accurately.
>
>   b) Ask whether Versign's actions impact that formulation in a way that
>      constitutes a "public detriment" and support this will clear and
>      convincing evidence
>
>   c) Ask whether the public detriment caused by Versign's act is of
>      such a degree and extent as to justify the suppression of that
>      activity.  This is definitely a subjective balancing act, and it
>      is time we started coming up with some rules to guide us when
>      we try to make that balance.

  I and many of our members like these set of "Rules".  But
again we along with yourself have presented before repeatedly
and met from ICANN with disdain.

>
>
>         --karl--

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801