Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root
2002-08-01 10:24:38
At 04:38 AM 8/1/2002 -0400, Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
A case could be made that if ICANN was even *pretending* to serve the public
interest, they could at least enter into a *discussion* with the ORSC people.
One of the tests of an idea that is required in the IETF pertains to
scaling. So, please apply your thought to the general case. It means that
ICANN would be legitimizing anyone and everyone who chooses to start an
independent activity. This is a very bad idea for the stability of the DNS.
It makes far more sense for ICANN to literally ignore independent
activities. And that is exactly what ICANN has done. To ignore them means
that ICANN does not pay any attention at all to those other
activities. This includes ICANN treating the IANA/ICANN name space as
self-contained, as in fact it is. Hence, the only "collisions" that ICANN
should pay attention to are collisions within the IANA/ICANN DNS.
Independent activities are, after all, independent. They choose to work
without coordinating with ICANN and they are free to do that. (Contrary to
Stef's interpretation, my comments are about registries and root
administrators, not about users.)
What makes no sense at all is for these folks to act independently and then
make a post hoc claim that ICANN is somehow obligated to coordinate with
them. Apply hour logic equally. Why were these folk not, themselves,
obligated to first do pre hoc coordination with ICANN?
Of course, we all know they won't even do that with their OWN board of
directors without a court order.
1. On the contrary, the Board seems to work quite well amongst itself. If
anything, Karl's rogue behavior underscores how well the rest of the Board
members operate, including some recent unanimous votes. This suggests that
other 'populist' Board members are able to play well with others. Karl is
the only one who is not. Indeed he has shown a very consistent behavior of
preferring to play to the cameras and reporters, rather than pursue his
complaints by talking to the people he disagrees with.
2. Note that Karl won the suit, but lost the war. He is now subject to
the conditions that ICANN had originally wanted to apply for his
access. The only difference is that now Karl is under a court order to
conform to those rules.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), (continued)
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), David Conrad
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), Joe Baptista
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), Bill Manning
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), Joe Baptista
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), Dave Crocker
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), Joe Baptista
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), Keith Moore
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), John C Klensin
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Message not available
- Re: way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root), Dave Crocker
- Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root,
Dave Crocker <=
- Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
- Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism..., Karl Auerbach
- Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism..., Dave Crocker
- Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism..., John Stracke
- Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism..., vinton g. cerf
- Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism..., Randy Bush
- Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism..., vinton g. cerf
- Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism..., Randy Bush
- Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism..., Dave Crocker
- Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism..., Joe Baptista
|
|
|