At 09:45 PM 7/8/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
>Gene,
>
>I always figured that the IETF approach is what Jon & IANA more or less
>represented, for better or worse--with the IETF's degree of open
>participation. Indeed, much of the structure of the DNS is expressed
>through the IETF RFC process.
>
>ICANN's model is certainly a far cry from that--but the basis of the White
>Paper was that Jon's system wasn't working anymore on its own. Jon
>certainly wanted out of the creeping policy stuff, and other pressures--new
>TLDs, trademark interests, and entrepreneurial interests in shared
>registries
Hi Jonathan,
On another list, you asked me to give you
the benefit of the doubt when I detected
bias. Ok, I've detected bias:
"Shared registries" were not promoted by
the entrepreneurs that I knew, it was a
business model promoted by the IAHC!
Jay.
>with millions of dollars at stake--pushed this enough out of the
>"mere" technical realm to require a more formal decisionmaking
>structure. Jon seemed to feel he couldn't make (or shepard) any major new
>DNS policy without an institution of some kind behind it. To
>lawyers/constitutionalists that means procedural safeguards, due process,
>notice & comment, balanced stakeholder representation, independent
>review--all the stuff that a more informal process tries to do
>intuitively. ...JZ
>
>At 10:23 PM 7/8/99 , Gene Marsh wrote:
>>Again, an IETF-like approach might work well here. Open participation and
>>policy creation are the only real way to gain real consensus.
>>
>>+++++++++++++++++++++
>>I'm very happy @.HOME(sm)
>>Gene Marsh
>>president, anycastNET Incorporated
>
>
>Jon Zittrain
>Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
