Re: [ga] GA list and the GNSO council

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:33 09/07/2007, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been diligently reading this list for a while now and have
> noticed the recent invocations of the GNSO council as being
> responsible for this list.
>
> As the new chair of the GNSO council, I must admit I am not up on the
> council's responsibilities vis a vis the GA list, but will look into
> it and will get back to the list when i understand what our
> responsibilities are in this regard.
>
> In the meantime, if it is at all possible I would like to beg, as a
> list member, people to take up the challenge Danny, I think it was,
> sent and ask you all to start discussing issues related to the GSNO
> and ICANN policy.  As a nomcom appointed council member I have always
> valued the contentful discussions I have read on this list.  It is a
> wonderful vehicle for real input and lots of people do seem to read
> the list.

Dear Avri,
The main problem I deal with which concerns the GNSO is convergence. 
Convergence is horizontal (the concatenation with other technologies) 
and vertical (the purpose of the different tele/data/meta 
communications layers). In these two aspects the DNS meets insertion 
problems, similar (but multiplied and probably renewed) to the one it 
met with the Trade Mark system.

This is an "emerging" issue. The question is to know if it is to also 
be discussed with the Internet Community or solely within the IGF?

There are several emergent aspects engaged today. They include:

- an important ontology related work which discusses the horizontal 
metastructures in/outside the Internet world
- the Multilingual Internet metastructure where two technical 
understandings oppose that I try to help converging
- the semantic addressing and routing vertical issue that we try to 
help debated in a non-ISO exclusive manner
- the alternative Internet naming architectures (DNS, Handles, 
Aliases, Keywords, Famous TMs)

Every of them should result into a unified namespace usage that will 
most probably merge the DNS into.

I fully understand the tensions around all this, since it engages the 
very future of ICANN in areas it overlooked, in spite of repeated 
warnings. This is why I whish to formally propose the GNSO to 
associate with our MLTF preparatory effort towards a joint 
exploratory work on the issue. This could be through a designated 
liaison on the matter participating to the dedicated MLTF list we 
plan (FYI MLTF is bilingual French/English) or through any other 
proposition you might do.

However, if you considered that these areas are no part of the GNSO's 
scope, I would thank you to let me know, so we avoid any further 
misunderstanding.
All the best.
jfc












> thanks
> a.