Re: [ga] VeriSign fends off critics at ICANN confab and ALAC's ligitimacy

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jefsey and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> At 05:13 12/10/03, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >Work seriously on an alternative and better structure. Then lobby for that
> >structure. Spend personal money. Volunteer time. Aim for surviving long
> >enough that natural selection can do its work. Internet time runs too fast
> >for dragons.
>
> Sorry, Joop, this has no future.

  Very much agreed.  Or at least no reasonable and productive future.


>
>
> Only to provide a relation pool for the only real possiblity. These are
> actions to curb an exsitsing structure (to better it) or to try an
> alternative as the alt-root TLDA (worse).

  Inclusive root structures are already in place and have been in
successful operation for 3+ years now and gaining stakeholders
as each day passes.

>
>
> None will work (better or alternative) only secondaries can work. Please
> stop thinking binary. Think network when managing a network.

  Good point here finally Jefsey.  Well stated!

>
>
> No one wants to fight ICANN. We only want it to behave itself.

  Wanting or not wanting is not really possible now and hasn't been
sense MDR2000.  ICANN is being challenged and on several
fronts as you know.  Hence the wanting is irrelevant.  ICANN
is not going to behave, that much is clear and also has been
sense MdR2000.

> As one inter
> pares and to work in concertation. I know, ICANN just do that (American
> meaning). What I want is they do it French meaning (now Eurospeak: work and
> live in concert) because this is the only way a multilateral strcuture can
> work.

  Your conclusion here is too tall of an order for the present BoD and
staff of ICANN.  This could be changed, but to change it would mean
a fundamental change in the structure and management operation
of the present ICANN.  This is not likely to happen any time soon
unfortunately.  Time is a huge factor, and in fact it may be too late
to "Fix" ICANN.  Best would be to kill it off and start again as
you rightly suggest here Jefsey.  But again, doing so will mean
fighting ICANN and it's few followers...  As such, many
heads will roll...

>
>
> Concertation does not mean that power is better delegated (a better ICANN)
> or better shared in cooperation (an alternative democratic ICANN). It means
> each participant (country, large networked and serviced  communities)
> retains its power and that subsidiarity applies (each one respects and
> helps accomplish the duties of others).

  True as far as you have gone here (above remarks).  But you leave
out individual and small business stakeholders/users.  They have an
equal stake and a greater exposure to ICANN's policy messes.

>
>
> This means:
>
> 1. to create and give practical credibility through ISPs, specialized
> community TLD and SLD Managers and groups of users, to secondary root
> publisher(s).

  Yes, but again you leave out individual stakeholders/users here
that do not seek to be part of groups and/or influenced not in
their best interests by such groups.

>
>
> 2. to have security and innovation orientated mutual concertation among
> such publishers. In this ICANN can either be (or both) the secretary of the
> consensus and/or the US publisher (with NTIA).

  Remember consensus can only be determined accurately if it is measured.
To do that measuring a vote must be taken but any and all stakeholders
or other interested parties, both groups or as individual stakeholders/users.
Than and only than can a actual consensus be actually known and therefor
legitimately declared or otherwise determined.

>
>
> 3. to create a technical arhitectural think-tank where to modelize a comon
> vision of the network and of its future and negotiate or get consensus on
> its avolution - as per ICANN ICP-3, starting with an authoritative matrix
> root common management system.

  ICP-3 was based upon many false or incorrect assumptions. As such,
it is not a valid document by which consensus can be adequately
and satisfactorily reached and/or determined.

> The current Internet reminds me my golden
> years, nice. But there is a 25 years experience now to take eventually into
> account. Nets unity cannot be built in imposing solutions from the past,
> only in a commonly shared vision of the NGN.

  Very much agreed here Jefsey!  Finally you seem to have arrived
or returned to more reasonable thinking processes...  >;)

>
>
> Our today problem is to decide if such publishers will be @large NGOs, Gov.
> sponsored/initiated or ITU.

  The ITU is and has been by in large, an abomination of gargantuan
proportions and scope.  Yet, as a group of international recognition
in many circles, it must be included, but not followed with abandon
or haste.

> From experience and from trying to restore that
> common management in that three directions (with the hope they could ally -
> http://i-sector.org ) I feel situation is nearly out of control (WSIS) by
> total lack of understanding between the technical, societal/business and
> political parties.

  Very true here in your last sentance/remark.  Remember there are
no political solutions to technical problems.  Yet some political problems
or concerns have technical solutions.  Social implications are policy
related and on a global scale, must be addressed in accordance
with the social norms or change in their respective jurisdictions.
This ICANN has failed terribly at.

>
>
> The problem being that we are confronted to a major network and that only a
> few today already think and speak network.

 The internet is a network of networks.  ICANN doesn't address that
fact in many situations in it's policy considerations or arbitrary
policy decisions.

>
>
> jfc

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k 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