Thanks for the clarifications, Jeff!
But may I beg your further indulgence?
> #3 is dealing with the [*]problem[*] of the current 13 Root
> servers and the current Root server structure of the DNS.
> There are many that [*]believe[*] that 13 Root servers is
> inadequate to handle the current load [,] to provide for both more
> competition as well as improve the Redundancy of the DNS.
I appreciate that many may conceive there are better ways to do
almost anything, but why is that a *problem*? As a network of
networks, isnt the principal characteristic of the Internet that it can
accomodate almost any system anyone wants to set up? If people
believe in a better way to provide competition and redundancy, why
not put it out there in parallel, and then we can all *see if it is?
> > _ There is widespread dissatisfaction about the absence of
> > competition in domain name registration.
>
> Yes, and this relates to #3 more specifically than is readily
> apparent. But the main thrust seems to be in providing for the
> competition to NSI current monopoly.
Once multiple registrars are in place, then couldnt the supervising
authority be dissolved? Once an estate is auctioned off, the
auctioneers usually go home.
> > _ Conflicts between trademark holders and domain name
> > holders are becoming more common. Mechanisms for resolving
> > these conflicts are expensive and cumbersome.
>
> Agreed. ANd in many's opinion not either enforceable or needed.
>
So an authority is needed to prevent (define?) unenforcable decisions??
> > _ Many commercial interests, staking their future on the
> > successful growth of the Internet, are calling for a more formal and
> > robust management structure.
>
> Indeed they are. However it is easy to call for this, but not so easy
> to
> do. Hence the current discussions with respect to ICANN and what sort
> of structure should be implemented.
>
Shall we say, many believe there is a better way? ;-)
> > _ An increasing percentage of Internet users reside outside of
> > the U.S., and those stakeholders want to participate in Internet
> > coordination.
>
> Yes they do, and they should as well.
>
Is ISOC, ITU, etc closed to them? Did the IAHC draft overlook or preclude this
point?
> > _ As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the
> > decision to add new top-level domains cannot be made on an ad
> > hoc basis by entities or individuals that are not formally
> > accountable to the Internet community.
>
> THis is where much of the debate is being waged currently. The White
> Paper requires in essence that this should be a Bottom-up Stakeholder
> driven and determined process. The ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board
> seems to believe otherwise, based on their most recent actions.
>
And the disparity suggests that the problem has been misstated.
Formal accountability might work iff there is something to be
called the Internet community, *or* Internet community might exist
iff there was a formally accountable structure -- but wait, isn't that
ham and eggs I smell?
-----------------
parable
> > I wouldnt want to say anyone has jumped from a frying pan into a
> > fire, but has this endless 'process' (IFWP et al) made the least bit
> > of difference? Hasnt the 'problem' been solved for some time now?
> > Where is all this 'trust' stuff coming from? Which war are we
> > fighting?
>
> What specifically has been solved in your mind?
>
Those who feel there are shots to be called are calling them.
As a corollary, those who dont so feel are being left in the yard to
squabble and natter and make a mess, until such time as they
learn to say please and thank you -- voluntarily.
-------------------
SOAWMTGO
If we dont like the idea of *imposed structure, then it makes no
sense to demand to be 'allowed' to design that structure. Nor, if we
dont like the design *process by which our allowance is granted, is
it sensible to demand certain outcomes.
If we want bottom-up voluntarism, self-defined codes, consensual
decisions, and open records, then why dont we demonstrate how
that *works?
In short, start out as we mean to go on. If IFWP (or any other
group of 300 or so) can rally round and produce a running-code
solution to **any problem whatsoever**, don't you imagine the
managers (erstwhile and pro tem) of this one will take note? Or do
they *like the headaches that come from no one ever being
satisfied?
kerry
