Re: firestorm

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > > That's the ITU's problem, not ours.  The MOU is primarily a
> > > statement of policy by the Internet community.  If it is also
> > > an "ITU instrument", well, that is just a side-effect and
> > > probably an unwanted one.
> >
> >   To correct you here Jim, the MoU is an perposal for the internet community
> > containing some policy recomendations to be considered by the internet
> > community.
> > The MoU by no means represents any where near a consensus of the internet
> > community on the whole.
>
> You have a valid point here.  I should have said, "the MOU is primarily
> a statement of policy by _members of_ the Internet community".  It was
> certainly meant to reflect a consensus, but has failed to do so.
>
> > > I repeat: the US Department of Defense does not have any fundamental
> > > authority here.  Neither does IANA.  IANA's authority, which is real
> > > (but at risk right now), is based upon the consent of the operators
> > > of the Internet.  That consent cannot be commanded by any particular
> > > national government.  It is voluntary.
> >
> >   Voluntary at present, yes.  Will this remain?  Who knows.  I don't believe
> > anyone does.
> > Without a  independant international body in a managment of the Domain System.
>
> If you think that someone is going to start forcing ISPs to point
> their name servers at one root server or another, you are very
> confused.  [Well, we all knew that, didn't we? ;-]

  I don't think so at all.  That will be up to those ISP's in the end.  However with

a "Shared Root" configuration, it would not really matter, now would it?

>
>
> An Internet based on voluntary cooperation is very cheap to operate.
> As soon as governments start poking their noses in and trying to
> enforce this or that rule, costs will skyrocket.

  As I have said over and over again and will say again here.  I would only support
a
independant international body to manage the Internet Domain Name system as well
as IP adresses.

>
>
> This is part of the fundamental economics of the Internet.

  And I say again I totaly agree.  Individual governments cannot be allowed to
manage any parts of the Domain Name system or the IP address in terms of
policy, or usage.  This can only be done by an independant International Body,
with a democraticly elected representatives in the managment possitions.

>
>
> > > > >*    alienating the people and institutions who gave their support
> > > > >     to the gTLD MOU
> > > >
> > > > That's what - 88 parties.  Are the really all alienated by being
> > >
> > > The set of people who supported the gTLD MOU is not the same as the
> > > set of CORE registrars.
> >
> >   How and where do you get this idea?
>
> I looked at the list of 180+ signatories of the gTLD MOU and the list
> of 90- CORE registrars and noticed that they were different :-|

  That is not a relevent answer.

>
>
> > > There are certainly CORE registrars who have not signed the gTLD MOU.
> >
> >   Who?
>
> Both lists are published, Jeff.  Go and cross-compare.

  I have many times.  SO?

>
>
> --
> Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council                                                 President
> 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

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com