<html>
<body>
<br>
I certainly support Imran's proposition. <br><br>
At 01:35 26/06/2011, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On 25 Jun 2011, at 14:25, Imran
Ahmed Shah wrote:<br>
> (Keeping in mind that it is not a case of current ccTLD who allow
the alternate usage e.g. .tv is being used as television
channel). <br><br>
Got to love those ccTLDs where it is still policy free virgin territory,
so to speak, where most anything goes. With all the rules we have
created for gTLDs - with TM owners and Law Enforcement finding new ways
to stifle expression and the market, the ccTLDS look better and better
all the time. Soon the saying will be - let a thousand IDN ccTLDs
bloom.</blockquote><br>
I must note that I am advising some ccTLDs that I am bound to not
disclose. I see that the rules that are established from experience on a
case per case basis are far more innovative than the "single fit for
none" proposed by ICANN. The reality was, until 1998, that all the
TLDs were like the expected IDNccTLD (I must also say that in my
understanding "IDN" stands for "Internet Domain
Name"). <br><br>
This is why ICANN, in order to financially and politically survive, had
to delay IDNgTLDs and thereby deny them access to Fast Track, which was
technically bad since they were able to bring forth new issues that were
totally illegitimate, and a major relational mistake.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">As for the perenial existential
and normative questions about ICANN's existence: the only thing i
know for sure is that it exists. So i deal with it.</blockquote><br>
This position of Avri is pragmatic.<br><br>
I feel that the bylaws, staff, and history of ICANN are inadequate.
However, there is definitely a need for a secretary for the global
(English/French meaning) consensus (the IGF was not able to fill it).
Therefore, an ICANN is necessary. However, the ICANN they built does not
address the ICANN true concept.<br><br>
However, feeling it or telling it is not proof. So, what? If it may be
the wrong organization, ICANN has at least, however, been honest: they
published the ICP-3 document.
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-3.htm">
http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-3.htm</a>. This document is fundamental
because it both explains :<br><br>
- (1) the ICANN legitimacy from a premature reading of the IETF
technology (that most shared at the time), and <br>
(2) the way to correct it from experimentation (i.e., as they explain,
the way the Internet always did it).<br><br>
Unfortunately, ICANN mostly called upon the IETF to carry out a
structured community experimentation. This was unfortunate because
experimentation does not belong to the IETF charter. Further on, the IAB
(RFC 3869) called upon non-commercial help to research and protect the
Internet architecture against biased technical interests from commercial
sponsors.<br><br>
A good and published exposure is necessary for non-commercial
testing for CS awareness and users' adhesion.<br><br>
1. This calls for money, i.e. funding, which was supposed to be out of
the community’s reach. This is why ICANN and IAB had governments in mind.
This did not work. As we saw it in e-G8.<br><br>
2. This may also result from stubbornness and opportunities. Actually the
experimentation and research ICANN called for came (at least in my
experience) from another non-commercial source.<br><br>
It came from "lead users" (those end-users who need and are
able to adapt their internet capacity to their own needs; you may call
them technical activists). Not being identified as such in the Internet
Governance and having their own business as a priority, it took time for
some lead users to be accepted as a possible contribution source, even if
they could show some different use solutions of the internet. The IESG
(actually the IETF Chair) acknowledged us in some kind of reality in
allowing me to run the iucg@ietf.org permanent mailing list that I
attached to the <a href="http://iucg.org/wiki">http://iucg.org/wiki</a>
site. Not much activity there, but private exchanges for ... me to
summarize the received suggestions :-) <br><br>
This was after:<br>
- we ran the dot-root community project with up to 30 nameservers and
people and three root systems over the course of nearly two years, fully
respecting the ICANN ICP-3 listed set of constraints. We did not carry
out all of what we wanted, but we learned as ICANN expected. <br>
- we opposed and won against the large groups (Unicode consortium) over
linguistic diversity, the support of which was a key case for the support
of every other diversity, i.e. the whole growth of the Internet. The
first time it was about "langtags" for language (hence
culture) filtering (RFC 4647). Then, it was about IDNA2008. <br><br>
All of this has led to the identification of the principle of
subsidiarity as the Internet fundamental response to diversity from its
very inception. <br><br>
Subsidiarity means that when something grows complex it is better and
more efficiently supported in respecting the responsibility of local
participants to adequately support it. This responsibility may include
the local decision to organize a central or several decentralized
back-ups: this is its sister principle of "suppléance" (I do
not know the equivalent English word). This achieves network distribution
vs. decentralization.<br><br>
So, we had the source of ideas. Now has come the opportunity to raise
interest and to move forward with the work and document what this
implies, . <br>
<br>
As long as ICANN did not commit "suicide" with the gTLD vote,
the exposure and interest were not important enough to sustain the work
on a subsidiarity oriented understanding of the DNS. Now this has
dramatically changed.<br><br>
Because, this should lead to a three TLD (or root names as we have called
them from the very inception of the world digital ecosystem [before the
Internet was plugged to it]) line of rates:<br><br>
1. $185,000 +++ from ICANN - under the nine points listed by Asif
Kabani (thx!) and the 10th about USG international policy affiliation
reported by Khaled Fattal.<br>
2. $44,000 ++ out of the JAS effort<br>
3. $0 + from the IUse community (*)<br><br>
(*) By nature, the IUse community is initially formed by people of
technical competence and professional responsibility who tend to favor
doing things rather than speaking up about them (or who tried in vain
through the @large ICANN "non-membership"). The target
is:<br><br>
- to establish a common glossary in order to
document our needs and possible solutions.<br>
- to document, develop, and test in a real
network life (intertesting) with a working framework supporting the
Internet single authoritative root matrix and other DNS related new
possibilities.<br>
- to organize an organization in order to help
reduce any possible conflicts<br>
- to support an Intelligent Use Interface
instance towards the Intersem (i.e. the semantic/semiotic internet of
thoughts) that is starting to be needed today in private and professional
areas.<br><br>
Then, new and interesting services, network quality and power, personal
and cultural e-empowerment will make every user to join that community.
It will take some time. That will depend on the people who were not
invited to the e-G8: us and the 2015 Internet leaders.<br><br>
I note that running a root name in the digital ecosystem calls for a
complete solution to support first level domain/root names, i.e. not only
a nameserver, but also a NIC manager. In this there is no need to
decidedly stick to Jon Postel's 1983 solutions (controversial/illegal
whois, for example). Innovation and adherence to the internet life we
know it today and consideration of our needs for security are the
priorities.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">ln all seriousness - to the
extent that is possible after a flight from Singapore, as a member of the
JAS WG which is trying to get the fees lowered for qualified applicants
from developing economies and to get other assistance since the
application fee is, as you indicated, just the tip of iceberg, I
would appreciate assistance and comment from the IGC community. One of
the first things folks could do is read and comment on the JAS WG second
milestone report:<br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#second-milestone-report" eudora="autourl">
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#second-milestone-report</a>
</blockquote><br>
Thank you for this effort. I disagree with the need for it, but since TM
holders, money makers, and poor managers make it necessary, this is a
work well done, which is also quite useful for the community as a
complement to experience. <br><br>
jfc </body>
</html>