>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 24 14:37:01 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from postman.bayarea.net (postman.bayarea.net [205.219.84.13])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCD6F0B6
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:37:00 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from dave-vaio (free.88.106.bayarea.net [205.219.88.106])
> by postman.bayarea.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA56538;
> Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
> (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.56 (Beta)
>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:31:40 -0700
>To: Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] What I would have said...
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Jim,
>
>It is a delight to see your return to carefully considered, restrained,
>substantive public commentary.
>
>At 02:32 PM 7/23/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
>>Internet. The DNS wars of the last few years are the result: most of the
>>various people, organisations, and governments involved in this dispute
>>are there because they want control of the Internet. The single root
>
>Indeed, Jim. It does look as if some of the more vocal and active
>participants are more interested in control than in a constructive outcome.
>
>>ICANN is simply an illustration of just how bad it can be. Charitably,
>>this is a harmless group of gormless dilettantes dabbling in matters that
>>they don't understand. To the more suspicious of us, it looks a lot like
>
>Charitably, such patent and mean-spirited disrespect warrants similar
>treatment in return.
>
>>a conspiracy cooked up between a hodge-podge of certain large
>>corporations; middle-ranking bureaucrats in Washington, Brussels, and
>
>To the more suspicious of you, a husband and wife going to a McDonalds for
>dinner looks like an effort to take over the world. The fact that there
>are crazy people with baseless suspicions does not mean anyone should
>attend to them.
>
>Unless, of course, one has some OTHER agenda that is served well by keeping
>the waters stirred up so vigorously.
>
>>ICANN was selected by hidden forces, lacks any support from the Internet
>>community, is trusted by precious few -- but ISOC, the ITU, the IAB, CORE,
>
>One comes to cherish the ease with which such sweeping and baseless
>assessments are made.
>
>Of particular humor is the dismissal of the relevant or import of major,
>global organizations that have a history of building the Internet and
>related services. Nope. They shouldn't count...
>
>>and certain elements of the US government and the European Commission have
>>lined up to support it.
>
>Oh, well then, it is DEFINITELY clear that ICANN has no MEANINGFUL support!
>
>>Why? ertainly not because of ICANN's intrinsic worth. It's because all
>>are convinced that they can control ICANN and through ICANN the Internet.
>
>What a profound assessment.
>
>Pray tell, where is the substantive basis for the firmness of this claim?
>
>>What we, the Internet community, need is a distributed DNS with no
>>single choke point. We need a formula that moves power away from the
>>center and towards the edges.
>
>I presume that a technical specification for the basic and major change to
>DNS technology is forthcoming, and will be submitted to the IETF for expert
>(and open) review and approval?
>
>To date, the DNS experts have not seen any such detailed proposal and, when
>anyone has bothered to ask them, they have expressed a belief that the
>hierarchical nature of the DNS mandates a single (centrally administered)
>root. Attempts to formulate "distributed" roots have, in fact, been
>nothing more than an attempt to impose another layer of central control, on
>top of the current system.
>
>It will be interesting to see your own effort at making the demand more
>practical than "let's all just decide to have world peace."
>
>>The most powerful factor driving the growth of the Internet has been
>>the fact that no one central authority has been able to legislate
>>what is best. In the end, that decision has been made by no one and
>>everyone.
>
>Evidently, Jim, you missed the relevance and coherence brought by the
>careful administrative and quality control of both the IETF and IANA. The
>wide-open freedom of activities you value included very specific points of
>central control, over the entire life of the Internet.
>
>>The nanny forces decided that OSI was better than TCP/IP. They
>>decided that X400 was the way to go for email. They mandated one
>
>"Nanny forces"? How clever. What DOES it mean?
>
>In fact, OSI and X.400 choices were made independently by many government
>and companies.
>
>If you want to extract the REALLY useful lesson from their failure, study
>the process of "group-think" that took place about the supposed benefits of
>ideas that had no pragmatic basis.
>
>In other words, look at the problems that always occur when people put
>forward and "adopt" proposals for which there is no practical experience,
>especially when those proposals call for massive complexity.
>
>It's a set of lessons we would do well to apply here.
>
>>Esther Dyson's $1 tax on .com domain names may seem harmless. It
>>isn't. If accepted, it establishes a principle: taxes can be imposed
>>on the entire Internet and on any particular part of the Internet. Once
>
>Something like the com/net/org fee that is 5-17 times larger than necessary?
>
>Be careful about claiming what is a precedent, Jim, especially when you are
>not putting forward an alternative (practical) proposal which will fund
>this necessary activity.
>
>>The Dyson tax, if accepted, also establishes another principle: we must
>
>Oh, that's delightful. First you misname it as a tax and then you demonize
>it by giving Esther all the credit.
>
>Tsk. Tsk. Jim, if one didn't know better, they might think that you were
>more interested in emotional flaming than in constructive discourse.
>
>d/
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
>Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
>675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
