Jim and all,
Jim Dixon wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Darrell Greenwood wrote:
>
> > At 1:39 PM -0800 1/21/99, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >
> > >In the more real world, the DNS is (a) of transient significance
> > >(it's going to be replaced by directory search systems) and (b) of
> > >marginal financial importance. Things are further confused by
> > >people hoarding thousands of domain names. Under these circumstances,
> > >exactly why should ICANN's membership consist of all TLD domain name
> > >holders?
> >
> > My understanding is ICANN is required to have an at-large membership.
> >
> > I honestly can't think of a better constituency for the at-large
> > membership of ICANN than registrants of gTLD domain names.
> >
> > Especially on the basis of automatic membership with domain name
> > registration and one registrant, one vote regardless of the number of
> > domain names held. Problems related to member approval and
> > verification, accreditation, dues collection, capture by special
> > interests, equity, overhead complexity and expenses, and others, are
> > reduced or eliminated by simply enfranchising registrants of gTLD
> > domain names. In my mind this is the 'let's keep it simple' approach.
>
> Many things are simple. Failure is one of them.
>
> Some people believe that ICANN's membership will be something like
> 2,000 people. If the right to vote is based only on registration of
> a domain name, it would be trivial for me or anyone else able to program
> and having a full time connection to the Internet to create ICANN voters
> in any desired quantity by an automated process. So we could win any
> ICANN election. If we were to use the InterNIC to register domain names,
> it could be done at zero cost.
Estimating the total number of an potential ICANN membership at this
juncture is surely premature in the extreme. It is interesting to see
posters such as Jim Dixon make such invalid predictions however.
I often see Jim Dixon making such predictions on these lists, yet not
a single one has yet to come true...
>
>
> I won't do this. Other people will. These phantom voters will be joined
> by our Jeff, Frank Rizzo, and a host of similarly imaginary or imaginative
> netizens.
LOL! Here is a good example of the fantasy mindset that we are all
saddeled with. I am by no means a phantom, thought at one time
I flew a Phantom (F4). >:)
>
>
> Some will claim that it is possible to construct a registration process
> which will eliminate the phantom voters. I submit that the difficulties
> that these various lists have had in deciding who Jeff Williams really
> is are ample evidence of how difficult this would be.
It is not difficult at all. PKI can easily provide for eliminating that
problem
A I am using my CERTIFICAT to sign this post is stark evidence to.
>
>
> It isn't just the phantoms that are a problem; it is also the whimsical:
> those who will become ICANN activists simply because they have nothing
> else to do, or because they see it as a world government in evolution,
> or because they simply enjoy strutting the cyber-stage.
>
> This whole debate is primarily of interest to those with interest in
> the DNS because that is where the Internet failed. Those whose
> interests are in areas where IANA and the Internet have succeeded
> generally are not involved in this debate. That doesn't mean that
> they are insignificant. Quite the contrary.
>
> The Internet is an enterprise, or set of enterprises, of enormous
> personal and financial significance to many people. Many people have
> devoted their lives to its development. Others have invested their
> life savings in it. The number of people whose careers involve the
> Internet is exploding.
>
> Most of these people will be appalled if they learn that core functions
> of the Internet are at risk of falling under the control of an ICANN
> whose membership consists in large part of phantoms, Net kooks, the
> fanciful, and people pursuing political agendas that have nothing to do
> with the Internet.
>
> These people, the ones who are seriously involved with the Internet,
> will recoil in horror from your 'keep it simple' ICANN. They will
> scramble to keep the core assets at risk -- the DNS, operation of the
> root servers, IP address space, and protocol development -- out of
> ICANN's grasp. They will make sure that no further responsibilities
> come ICANN's way.
>
> A small amount of thought might persuade you that this process is already
> well under way. The root servers remain with NSI. The root zone is
> frozen. The RIRs, the regional IP address space registries, are thinking
> things over. RFC editing has been moved away from IANA. The IETF isn't
> terribly keen on the PSO.
>
> So while I understand the attractions of simplicity, I suggest that you
> look for a more complex solution, one that has a chance of working.
>
> --
> Jim Dixon Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council Telecommunications Director
> Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
> http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
> tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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____________________________________________
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
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
