If there were killer content that is only available in the
other-than-IANA-root, then people would quietly (or not) begin
reconfiguring their computers to view it.
Right now, SuperRoot or Virtual Root or Competitive Root or whatever you
call it is like a private road in cyberspace. But give the users something
they cannot find elsewhere, and they will beat a path to your door, the
saying goes. It's just important that moving toward critical mass doesn't
involve creating a critical mess. IMHO.
--Ellen
>I think we are beginning to converge, but are still running in
>different paradigms, so that our same words mean different things to
>each of us.
>
>I see in your text below, some sense that one way to solve the
>problem of ICANN is to declare it to be a public enemy, and then call
>the troops to wage war on the declared enemy.
>
>That of course will justify them in waging war on us.
>
>I propose that we do noting of that kind.
>
>Instead, what we need to do is work around ICANN,
>knowing they are there, but working around them none-the-less.
>
>This way, neither of us has to get into a fight,
>and we do not need to involve lots of other people in "our war".
>
>All we really need to do is to find a way to stop fighting among ourselves,
>and find a way to maintain what we have been recently calling our
>"Inclusive DNS Root Service" where-in, we include the ICANN root plus
>our own additions to that root, so our root is inclusive, and their
>root is exclusive.
>
>This is of course, more or less what we are doing now, except that we
>are splintered into fighting camps. Unfortunately some people solve
>their
>problems by fighting, and so our job is to work around this also.
>
>Not by beating them in a war and claiming the spoils, but by somehow
>getting them to play our non-zero-sum game, in place of their
>zero-sum game.
>
>This means that we are together in this mess, and that when one of us
>gains value from the game, no one else need be losing what the
>gaining person gained.
>Our game should be to add value to all of our participants by making
>the whole of our enterprise worth more to everyone that is in the
>game with us.
>
>The collective whole of a smooth running stable inclusive Root is
>surely worth much more than a fragmented bunch of roots that is run
>by a bunch of people who are fighting with each other.
>
>We need to present to the world a coherent image, in place of our
>current incoherent image. We can only do this by finding ways to
>forge a collective effort.
>
>I am not sure how to do this, but I do know that this is what we need.
>
>Cheers...\Stef
>
>
>
>At 14:27 -0600 10/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>>I can understand you, Gordon, and still have my own perspective.
>>
>>The trust you hope to see perhaps grows out of folks interacting
>>with mutual respect for one another, which for me grows out of
>>that global sense of our deep interactivity I keep talking about.
>>I have a long way to grow, personally, to achieve this level of
>>maturity, but tiny progress every day adds up over a lifetime.
>>And so I do what little I can from where I am to make a dent.
>>
>>Most of us think we're isolated and powerless. That's a lie.
>>When Stef talks about the power at the edge of the network,
>>this is where I'm focusing, empowering individuals for action.
>>
>>The practical problem is that we need a common framework
>>for responsible behavior that honors the rights of all players,
>>like we need a common language to communicate clearly.
>>I'm advocating an inner sense of global interactivitiy that
>>guides us to balance our freedom with responsibility.
>>
>>Since we lack the emotional, political or even spiritual maturity for
>>responsible self rule (so far), we need laws to govern our actions.
>>Law is the fundamental Social Contract keeping civilization from
>>descending into chaos. When we finally grow up into adulthood,
>>anarchy may work. Until we do learn how to live responsibly free,
>>I favor laws over kings for setting bounds on civil conduct. Right
>>now we have the fox guarding the henhouse. Apart from the rule
>>of law and asserting our natural right to enjoy self determination,
>>how else would you propose stopping the ravages of ICANN?
>>
>>Indeed, the more I think about it, could a lawsuit be the answer?
>>(There never was any public vote to privatise the public Internet,
>>and there never was any public vote giving authority to ICANN.)
>>And if so, in what venue could the plaintiffs gain a fair hearing?
>>And who could or would put up the money to sustain the suit?
>>Is there anyone with deep pockets AND a deep conscience?
>>
>>-- ken
>>
>>Ken Freed
>>Publisher, Media Visions Journal
>>http://www.media-visions.com
>>
>>"Deep literacy makes global sense"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>Which is why we need laws governing the DNS, not committees.
>> >>-- ken
>> >>
>> >>P.S. Richard: Your address: ("Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>> >> always bounces as "undeliverable", if that info is
>>helpful to you.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND ken.......
>> >
>> >although I admitt I didn't fully understand until I called steff
>> >voice a couple of hours ago and asked him to explain the TCP function
>> >as a tust mechanism for IP.
>> >
>> >laws shmaws...... the bloody hell with laws...... yes in grade
>> >school they taught us that laws were good....but any gd laws in any
>> >gd legilature are gonna be the laws the control freaks o the icann ip
>> >police want........
>> >
>> >so don't talk laws.,...... you are wasting all our time...... the
>> >only way end to end can work is if the ends can trust each
>> >other.........
>> >
>> >if someone has enough money to sue department of commerce over icann
>> >let them do so!!!!! If no one steps up to the plate then turn to
>> >trust issues and start DEALING with rewality
>> >
>> >by the way if you throw out the ICANN roots from your dns
>> >
>> >
>> >and use the following ip addresses for your name server
>> >204.80.125.130
>> >204.57.55.100
>> >199.166.24.1
>> >
>> >richard sextons non standard dns works fine
>> >
>> >
>> >ARGH!!!! i have used these for about 2 years 7 by 24
>> >--
>> >****************************************************************
>> >The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
>> >(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 9 years
>> > of the COOK Report at http://cookreport.com From now
>> >through Sept 15th
>> >half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL
>> >back issues.
>> >Site license $575 and all back issues $300.
>>http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml
>> >****************************************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen Rony )/_ http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author <" \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Domain Name Handbook /) ) +1 415.435.5010
---/'-""---
The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.
