See below for my comment:
At 10:21 PM -0500 8/2/02, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
On 8/2/02, Gordon Cook wrote:
>Grab this PDF and read it and you will see what it is like
>to have to deal with Joe Sims. As professor Froomkin said
>here earlier today he tried to warn Vint at INET last
>month but Vint was not ready to listen and by the looks of
>it still isn't ready to listen.
As a U.S. Citizen I found this to be an interesting and
However, isn't this a political discussion?
The technical issues are whether you can have a single name
space without a single algorithm/authority for resolving
conflicts, and the mechanism(s) for distributing that
Debating the first point quickly resembles discussions of
square circles and perpetual motion machines. Everytime it
is pointed out that the lack of a single algorithm/authority
would mean that there was no longer a single name space the
topic shifts and has a tendency to focus on the *identity*
of those currently in charge of that namespace.
All of which is irrelevant.
I would suggest that those who believe ICANN is a problem
should spend their time writing their congressisonal
representatives. It is not a technical issue.
Been there, Done that, and it did no good whatsoever.
Even did more than that, by complaint to the GAO, which there-upon
caused the DoC to revise its mode of handing over the deal to ICANN,
and to instruct ICANN to talk with ORSC, which ICANN never did, or
at most did nothing that we suggested that they do, like open up and
accept Domain Name Holder's input.
So, now it is too late for any of that, and ICANN is well on its way
to its final resting place at the bottom of the cliff that they have
been racing to reach before any of us can catch them;-)...
Hopefully they will simply take care of themselves before much longer.
they have certainly done a fine job of it in dealing with Karl;-)...
So, Onward! Enough of this looking back;-)...\Stef