Esther and all,
I am not speaking for J.William, but I thought his post was quite clear.
The problem with the various proposals of the DNSO.ORG, purport
to be supported by ccTLD groups, in the majority, as well as other
self serving organizations that are intent on creating a "DNSO" that is
froth with "Constituencies" that are divisive, and are attempting to
"Capture" the control of the DNS system. This would seem to be
obvious even to a casual observer. Evidently you, Esther need
to either read the DNSO.ORG's various drafts a bit closer, or you
are intentionally being disingenuous, as you well know that the DNSO.ORG
process has been drastically flawed from it very inception, due to the
meddling of both Mike Roberts and Joe Simms....
Please don't take us for fools.....
Esther Dyson wrote:
> What is it specifically about the current proposals that you support or do
> not support?
>
> Please remember that the DNSO discussion is not about which ccTLD orgs'
> members would be part of the DNSO, but rather what the rules/structure of
> the DNSO will be. OUr assumption is that almost everyone currently involved
> will become part of the DNSO.
>
> If you have a problem with particular parts of a proposal, please clarify.
> There is nothing in any proposal that I have seen that specifically
> addresses these ccTLD issues. We hope you and your members will participate
> in forming the DNSO and then in contributing as participants to its
> deliberations, as it develops policy recommendations for ICANN.
>
> Esther Dyson
>
> At 05:43 AM 29/01/99 +0000, J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) wrote:
> >
> >
> >An Open Letter To the ICANN and DNSO Community:
> >
> >There suddenly appears to be a lot of confusion afoot in the DNSO public
> >(and private) discussion lists about ccTLDs. In particular, many
> >self-appointed TLD "experts" have decided to declare which ccTLD
> >organizations might be thought to represent the ccTLD "consensus," as if
> >such a thing could exist, and how that spurious "consensus" should
> >figure in developing the DNSO application.
> >
> >Many of these self-appointed experts appear to have little or (mostly)
> >no experience or involvement in the ccTLD community, and are, basically,
> >propagating myths and fantasies.
> >
> >That is one reason many ccTLD managers have been concerned about ICANN's
> >(and the DNSO's) role in setting future policy directions for ccTLDs. We
> >have been an autonomous, independent group for nearly 15 years and are
> >pretty much used to making our own policy decisions and solving our own
> >technical problems, based on the current RFCs. The continuing stability
> >of the DNS over those years is testament to the ongoing success of that
> >approach.
> >
> >Some of these "experts" have decided that CENTR, a group of 36 Western
> >and Eastern European ccTLD administrators, represent a "consensus" view
> >for all other ccTLDs. This is just not so. CENTR represents only one
> >(small) point of view in the wide expanse of 240 ccTLD administrators
> >worldwide.
> >
> >These same "experts" have also decided that IATLD (International
> >Association of Top Level Domains) can not be thought to represent any
> >kind of ccTLD consensus view since it only represents the views of
> >"small" ccTLDs. This is also false.
> >
> >In fact, 73 ccTLDs have come out in support of the IATLD position that
> >ICANN (and by extension DNSO) should continue to recognize RFC 1591 and
> >other RFCs that relate to DNS management on the Internet. That is more
> >than twice the number of ccTLDs involved in CENTR.
> >
> >It is true that most of these 73 ccTLDs represent mostly non-white,
> >non-European or less-developed nations. But would you define China as
> >"small"? Mexico? Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Peru, Egypt, or Namibia? I
> >don't think so.
> >
> >The IATLD is committed to representing the consensus opinions of these
> >73 ccTLDs to assure that the basic rules and procedures set in place by
> >RFC 1591 for ccTLD administration are maintained by ICANN, with any
> >future changes in the RFCs developed using due process - not
> >arbitrarily.
> >
> >If the participants in the current DNSO application refuse to recognize
> >this broad support for RFC 1591, as appears to be happening right now,
> >then we will likely opt out of the DNSO process and continue the current
> >autonomous system of ccTLD self-management that IANA put in place with
> >RFC 1591.
> >
> >So please, do not purport that "consensus" ccTLD support exists for the
> >current DNSO application(s) until you have first made certain to include
> >the clearly-stated perspectives of these 73:
> >
> >.AI - Anguilla
> >.AM - Armenia (RIPE/CENTR Member)
> >.BI - Republic of Burundi
> >.BO - Bolivia
> >.BR - Brazil
> >.CC - Cocos & Keeling Islands
> >.CD - Democratic Republic of the Congo
> >.CG - Republic of the Congo
> >.CL - Chile
> >.CN - China
> >.CR - Costa Rica
> >.CV - Cape Verde Islands
> >.CO - Columbia
> >.DO - Dominican Republic
> >.DZ - Algeria
> >.EG - Egypt
> >.ER - Eritrea
> >.FK - Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
> >.GD - Grenada
> >.GF - French Guiana
> >.GG - Guernsey
> >.GH - Ghana
> >.GM - The Gambia, West Africa
> >.GP - Guadeloupe
> >.GS - South Georgia and Sandwich Islands
> >.GT - Guatemala
> >.HN - Honduras
> >.ID - Indonesia
> >.JE - Jersey
> >.KW - Kuwait
> >.KY - Cayman Islands
> >.KZ - Kazakhstan
> >.LA, Lao People's Democratic Republic
> >.LC - Saint Lucia
> >.LR - Liberia
> >.LS - Lesotho
> >.LY - Libya
> >.MG - Madagascar
> >.ML - Republic of Mali
> >.MP - Northern Mariana Islands
> >.MS - Montserrat
> >.MT - Malta
> >.MU - Mauritius
> >.MW - Malawi
> >.MX - Mexico
> >.NA - Namibia
> >.NU - Niue
> >.NZ - New Zealand
> >.PA - Panama
> >.PE - Peru
> >.PG - Papua New Guinea
> >.PH - Philippines
> >.PN - Pitcairn
> >.QA - Qatar
> >.RW - Republic of Rwanda
> >.SB - Solomon Islands
> >.SC - Seychelles
> >.SG - Singapore
> >.SV - El Salvador
> >.TC - Turks and Caicos Islands
> >.TF - French Southern Territories
> >.TJ - Tajikistan
> >.TO - Tonga
> >.TT - Trinidad and Tobago
> >.TW - Taiwan
> >.UA - Ukraine
> >.UG - Uganda
> >.UY - Uruguay
> >.UZ - Uzbekistan
> >.VE - Venezuela
> >.VU - Vanuatu
> >.VG - Virgin Islands (British)
> >.ZW - Zimbabwe
> >
> >Respectfully submitted by
> >
> >J. William Semich
> >President and Co-founder
> >Internet Users Society - Niue
> >.NU Domain (Niue)
> >and
> >Secretary/Treasurer
> >International Association of Top Level Domains (IATLD)
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
> Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>
> PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
