Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Thanks for the clarifications, Jeff!
>
> But may I beg your further indulgence?
Sure, no problem! >;)
>
>
> > #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*?
Well the reason some see this as a problem is mainly the old adage,
why change sort of thing as well and unfamiliarity with other potential
DNS Root server architectures. But I completely agree with your question.
> As a network of
> networks, isnt the principal characteristic of the Internet that it can
> accomodate almost any system anyone wants to set up?
Yes. And it really can. This has been one of our beefs. Why restrict
additional Root servers unless there is some sort of need to qualify
gTLD's or limit their for some arbitrary reason? So, again I agree
entirely with your question. >;)
> 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?
Agreed completely. And thai is what some have done and others
will be doing despite the arcane desire to be limiting.
>
>
>
> > > _ 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.
Well not really. There is the need or perceived need for continuous oversight.
>
>
> > > _ 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??
LOL! again good questions that seem to bring things full circle, eh?
>
>
> > > _ 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? ;-)
You could say that, yes.
>
>
> > > _ 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?
No the ISOC nor the ITU is not closed, but very limiting due to very high
fees and a restrictive membership arrangement.
>
>
> > > _ 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?
Well there is an internet stakeholder community, this much is
accepted and well known.
>
>
> -----------------
> 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.
But do they have the authority to call those shots for all of the Stakehoder
community. The White Paper says, no as does the ICANN/NTIA/MoU.
>
>
> 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.
As a stakeholder, I don't fee that I or any other Stakeholder should
be begging or ask for anything hat in hand so to speak. Many others
that have invested huge amounts of money and time also feel this
way as well.
>
>
> -------------------
> 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.
Demanding certain outcomes, no. Demanding that no harm is done
as a result of those outcomes, yes. Demanding that the process be
developed from a bottom-up perspective, yes. Demand that the "Design"
not dictate a specific set of business models, yes.
>
>
> If we want bottom-up voluntarism, self-defined codes, consensual
> decisions, and open records, then why dont we demonstrate how
> that *works?
It is already being demonstrated very widely now.
>
>
> 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?
Good questions. And questions best ask the ICANN "Initial" and
Interim board. It appears to me that the ICANN as well as the DNSO.ORG
seem to prefer the latter.
>
>
>
> kerry
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
