- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation and auctioning model.
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

Patrick and Hong, I find your comments a strong over-reaction. The issue that is being discussed is how to handle the situation of multiple people applying for the same TLD, and they cannot come to an agreement amongst themselves. Classic examples are ".web" and ".mail" but there are plenty of other examples. The paper discusses the various ways of addressing such conflicts, and comes to the conclusion that auctions are probably the preferable path. If you disagree with this, that is fine. The only seeming practical alternative is a subjective analysis of which is the best for the overall good of the Internet or the communities or whatever (the so-called beauty contest). I find that alternative far too fraught with potential problems, but if that is what you favour, it would be interesting to hear how you think it can be done properly. Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic. On the positive side, the possible auctions of these relatively few high-profile TLDs will likely bring in a LOT of money. It has repeatedly been suggested that this wind-fall profit not be simply wrapped into ICANN general funds, or even used to offset the costs of offering new gTLDs. But rather it be used to (with appropriate caution) make it less expensive and less onerous for not-for-profits, cultural communities and developing countries folks to acquire new gTLDs. Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong statement about. Alan At 09/08/2008 06:03 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >Thanks for drawing our attention on this paper. Given that the new gTLD >process embraces the IDN TLDs, the paper presents a very surprising, or >shocking view, on allocation of TLDs. If the paper is primarily on the >economic consideration, I wonder if the ICANN has any other consideration, >such as protecting cultural diversity and bridging digital divide, on >selection of new gTLDs (IDN gTLDs). As a governing body of a critical >Internet resources, ICANN should envisage the values that are more important >and fundamental than the highest bidding amount. I echo what has been >precisely stated by Vittorio: > >Another wrong assumption is that monetary value is the only quantity that >counts.In fact, personally I think that the "value" of a TLD is mostly >connected to other factors. For example, one is how many final users of the >Internet will ever use services located inside that TLD; another one is how >strongly these people will feel attached to that TLD, i.e. whether the TLD >contributes to build any kind of "community identity" for an online group of >people that presently does not have it; a third one is whether the new TLD >will spawn innovative uses of the DNS or enable innovative services. None of >these is directly connected to monetary value, and it is quite disturbing to >me that an organization like ICANN, which is meant to steward scarce global >public resources in the interest of the entire community of the Internet, >still seems to have such a partial and narrow view of where the value of the >Internet itself lies. >Hong > > > > >On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu > > wrote: > > > http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm > > > > ICANN has published a paper from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, > > regarding the use of auctions to award new TLD strings in case of > > contention. > > > > http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf > > > > I think it would be important that the At Large speaks up. The model > > proposed in the document is a purely capitalistic one. It is based on > > the assumption that all gTLDs are created to make as much money as > > possible. Smaller, community based TLDs seem quite difficult to launch > > in such context. > > > > The mere possibility of auctions will actually generate contention on > > some strings. The little guys wishing to establish a not-for-profit TLD > > will be outplayed by the wealthy ones. > > > > A public forum has been established at > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. > > Comments to auction-consultation(a)icann.org before 8 September 2008. > > > > -- > > Patrick Vande Walle > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

11 16

Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation and auctioning model.
by Patrick Vande Walle Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm ICANN has published a paper from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, regarding the use of auctions to award new TLD strings in case of contention. http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf I think it would be important that the At Large speaks up. The model proposed in the document is a purely capitalistic one. It is based on the assumption that all gTLDs are created to make as much money as possible. Smaller, community based TLDs seem quite difficult to launch in such context. The mere possibility of auctions will actually generate contention on some strings. The little guys wishing to establish a not-for-profit TLD will be outplayed by the wealthy ones. A public forum has been established at http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. Comments to auction-consultation(a)icann.org before 8 September 2008. -- Patrick Vande Walle

3 4

Re: [At-Large] FW: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

I guess confusion was inevitable given the changes we made. The ALAC-ANNOUNCE list is for announcements by select ALAC members and staff (select meaning those who typically need to make announcements to the world). The ALAC list is the primary working list for the ALAC and RALO management. Only those can post to it, but it is publicly readable through http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/ or http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/forum/204. The AT-LARGE list is available to all who want to participate. One would perhaps think that all people who are on the ALAC list would also be here, but that is not the case. In the particular message you were replying to, I was addressing the ALAC and RALO people to start a discussion (prior to tomorrow's ALAC meeting) on whether we need to take some action (policy or practice) to avoid cross posting due to the "anomaly" described above. The RALO lists were mentioned in my posting because it seems common for people to cross post to both AT-LARGE and one or more RALO lists. Alan At 11/08/2008 09:13 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: >Alan, > >The ALAC list is for announcements only. E-mails such as this that are >meant to generate conversation should never be posted to that list as it >is a closed list. They should be posted to this list. The reason for >that is so that people that only want to get "official" announcements >can set their filters accordingly so as to cut down on the amount of >e-mail traffic that they receive. > >At-Large is where the conversations/debates on issues that affect the >entire world take place now. > >The RALO lists are for regional discussions. > >This makes perfect sense to me. Not sure where the confusion might >exist! > >Darlene > >Darlene A. Thompson >Community Access Program Administrator >Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >Phone: (867) 975-5631 >Fax: (867) 975-5610 >E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan >Greenberg >Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:44 PM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication > >The ALAC and (presumably) the ALAC-Internal list includes the ALAC, >RALO management and ICANN staff. > >The At-Large list is a self-selected list of people which (at the >moment) includes all ALAC members, but not not several of the RALO >people. > >The RALO lists include an unknown subset/superset of these same people. > >Somehow we need to rationalize this. > >Some questions that come to mind are: >- Where do we want substantive discussions with users to take place. >- Are ALAC and RALO people obliged to read the At-Large list and >comment when appropriate. >- Should the RALO lists be identified as being exclusively for issues >that are relevant to that RALO only? > >Are there more question that we need to consider.? Are there any >reasonable answers which will allow interaction with people outside >of this lists's members, but will avoid needless cross posting? > >Alan > >PS The issue came up in my mind because I am about to post a message >on the RAA and see no way to hit a reasonable cross-section of people >without cross-posting. > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

I do not own it, it belongs to everyone, so let me make money selling it!
by JFC Morfin Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

How nice this "Internet for the Rich". I love the Anglo-Saxon practical money inductive reasoning ... There are definitly different cultures on this list : "I sell", "I do", "I follow", "we wait for the best opportunity for us", "may be, we could share". We will see who is the winner. jfc At 23:20 10/08/2008, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Patrick and Hong, I find your comments a strong over-reaction. > >The issue that is being discussed is how to handle the situation of >multiple people applying for the same TLD, and they cannot come to an >agreement amongst themselves. Classic examples are ".web" and ".mail" >but there are plenty of other examples. > >The paper discusses the various ways of addressing such conflicts, >and comes to the conclusion that auctions are probably the preferable >path. If you disagree with this, that is fine. The only seeming >practical alternative is a subjective analysis of which is the best >for the overall good of the Internet or the communities or whatever >(the so-called beauty contest). I find that alternative far too >fraught with potential problems, but if that is what you favour, it >would be interesting to hear how you think it can be done properly. > >Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web >will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is >your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic. > >On the positive side, the possible auctions of these relatively few >high-profile TLDs will likely bring in a LOT of money. It has >repeatedly been suggested that this wind-fall profit not be simply >wrapped into ICANN general funds, or even used to offset the costs of >offering new gTLDs. But rather it be used to (with appropriate >caution) make it less expensive and less onerous for not-for-profits, >cultural communities and developing countries folks to acquire new gTLDs. > >Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong >statement about. > >Alan

1 0

FW: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication
by Thompson, Darlene Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

Alan, The ALAC list is for announcements only. E-mails such as this that are meant to generate conversation should never be posted to that list as it is a closed list. They should be posted to this list. The reason for that is so that people that only want to get "official" announcements can set their filters accordingly so as to cut down on the amount of e-mail traffic that they receive. At-Large is where the conversations/debates on issues that affect the entire world take place now. The RALO lists are for regional discussions. This makes perfect sense to me. Not sure where the confusion might exist! Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:44 PM To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication The ALAC and (presumably) the ALAC-Internal list includes the ALAC, RALO management and ICANN staff. The At-Large list is a self-selected list of people which (at the moment) includes all ALAC members, but not not several of the RALO people. The RALO lists include an unknown subset/superset of these same people. Somehow we need to rationalize this. Some questions that come to mind are: - Where do we want substantive discussions with users to take place. - Are ALAC and RALO people obliged to read the At-Large list and comment when appropriate. - Should the RALO lists be identified as being exclusively for issues that are relevant to that RALO only? Are there more question that we need to consider.? Are there any reasonable answers which will allow interaction with people outside of this lists's members, but will avoid needless cross posting? Alan PS The issue came up in my mind because I am about to post a message on the RAA and see no way to hit a reasonable cross-section of people without cross-posting. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation andauctioning model.
by JFC Morfin Aug. 10, 2008

Aug. 10, 2008

At 03:29 10/08/2008, Hong Xue wrote: >What Chris said reminds me of the ALAC statement at the ICANN Public Forum: >ICANN should encourage the IDN gTLDs be run by the small-scale, >non-commercial and language community-base registries. But under the auction >model, these applicants will be simply out of the question. > >Hong Dear Hong, We are in a real world. This world has a digital ecosystem, which is the convergence of all its digital resources. The usage of this ecosystem is understood by people, governments, and businesses as the "Information Society". It is internationally supported by seven main bodies: ITU for the underlying telecommunications, ISO for the normative aspects, WSIS/IGF for the datacommunications aspects, UNESCO for the cultural and educational part of emerging metacommmunications, and the commercial aspects that are being dealt with by the WTO. The IntellectualProperty issues are addressed by WIPO. The seventh body is the Internet itself, which RFCs call the "Internet Community", that we call "@larges" the lead users, the WSIS calls "the people", and ICANN calls "the market". This results from the very architectural nature of the Internet (the network of the networks): there is no "Internet Operator". This is something quite new. However, increasingly more global mechanisms are developing in that way, as a concerted effort rather than as a directed or a collective effort. This means that we are in a transition between those who want to control the world (and will never be able to do so) and those who want to help it work in its new ways. This changes simply results from the number of people, education, parity, and the state of the art. They make us transition from a world of 200 countries or so to a world of 6.5 billion partly internationally sovereign people). You are right. This boils down to can ".china" be sold by ICANN to banks that will associate in order to protect ICANN even if the JPA is not renewed? This simply means, who in our digital world is to say what China is: a country or an e-commerce market. The one who can is actually the one who owns the IANA as the referent center of the Internet and the core of the world digital ecosystem. This is why there is a race between: - internationalization with a unilateral IANA which documents all the languages and shall remain the center of the Internet - and multilingualisation with an extended multilateral IANA distributed system documents Internet interoperability and interintelligibility among all nations, cultures, languages, trades, communities, and people. A single Google or billions of interrelated ISO 11179++ e-empowered and real time ontologies. Trillions of dollars, national powers, industrial strategies, and billions of lives are at stake. Until the NTIA spoke up, ICANN believed it possessed IANA forever and could negotiate it with the several entities that are engaged in trying to control it. Now, ICANN has to expedite the process and commit something in favor of its IANA involvement before August 31, 2009. DNSSEC was a possibility and ISOC (.org) is trying to speed up its deployment. IANA's own management and new services that would require ICANN's expertise is another possibility (IANA under XML, and new services signed with TLD Managers, Escrow policy). Obviously, the key one is the Internationalized Internet that has to be played with the main industrial entities through their Unicode consortium (which will necessarily welcome the business IDNccTLD operators for reasons that are plain to you if you are on the WG-IDNABIS or WG-LTRU mailing lists). This is why the real issue is between the Internationalized and Multilingualised Internet. One has to understand the devil's trap. The Internationalized Internet is still devised in a centralized manner (IDNA, LSR, ICANN IDNccTLDs). That architecture will impose an enormous load on the IANA machines and lines; moreover, the way that IDN, langtags, IDNccTLD have been designed, with no specific system having been developed to update billions of users. This is the same as if Host.txt was still supporting the Internet names and we had no DNS. There will be a day (chosen by a few Unicode members in changing a few lines of codes in the ICU language routines used everywhere) when the lingual applications will start (along their own updates) to really interchange with the IANA machines, dumping the huge LSR registry and creating the largest DoS ever. That day, an emergency decision will have to be made: who is going to operate the IANA. There are only two answers: Unicode or UN, meaning in the short term Google or the USA. The bet is that "people" (press, media, "activists", etc.) will "oppose" "non-democratic" US control over the Internet, which would lead to "UN" control through the IGF. I do not think that we should be impressed. Because all of this is based on a centralized root server system, adherence to the langtags, a well working IDNA, a general technical sleepness among @larges around the world, and a lack of early enough warning of ISO, ITU, UNESCO, and Governments. ICANN's root server IP address story, the overdelays in writing the RFC 4646bis (langtags upgrade), the acknowledgment by Vint Cerf (Chair of the WG-IDNABIS) that the IDNA200X that they are working on will not be the ML-DNS that people expect (which would offer in every language the same quality of service as the current DNS in ASCII English), etc. make that the unilateral management of the most multilateral system ever developed is not that easy. However, this does not mean that they will not hope to succeed, in turn creating confusion. As the one you oppose. This is what we have to be prepared to cope with. 1) in helping ICANN decide whether they want to do good, how and when. And to help it as most will be at a relational level. This is the ALAC real job. It is critical for ICANN. 2) in helping devise technical solutions and relational organizations that can help those users who are not protected by their Government and their Language as, for example, the Chinese community is. jfc

1 0

Competitive Root [was: Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation and auctioning model.]
by JFC Morfin Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

Dear Hong Xue, Patrick, as you know I fully share your concerns and defeated last year an attempt to control IDNccTLD allocation permitting this kind of absurd behavior. Yet, this did not made them to change tack. However, I would really be interested if you could (or anyone else) quote a text making possible a different ICANN strategy. (1) the higher the price the more the buyer will defend the seller's strategy. Obviously ICANN prefer to make friend with large corporations rather than with a few @larges who have no BoD vote. (2) As far as I recall ICANN is to "foster competition" in the domain name area. NTIA says they do not enough. However, - ICANN was not to be a Registry (I do not know if this is still in the ByLaws) - competition at Golden TLD level can only be carried by (a) Competitive Root(s) - it/them being capitalistic, nationalistic, people centric? jfc At 00:03 10/08/2008, Hong Xue wrote: >Thanks for drawing our attention on this paper. Given that the new gTLD >process embraces the IDN TLDs, the paper presents a very surprising, or >shocking view, on allocation of TLDs. If the paper is primarily on the >economic consideration, I wonder if the ICANN has any other consideration, >such as protecting cultural diversity and bridging digital divide, on >selection of new gTLDs (IDN gTLDs). As a governing body of a critical >Internet resources, ICANN should envisage the values that are more important >and fundamental than the highest bidding amount. I echo what has been >precisely stated by Vittorio: > >Another wrong assumption is that monetary value is the only quantity that >counts.In fact, personally I think that the "value" of a TLD is mostly >connected to other factors. For example, one is how many final users of the >Internet will ever use services located inside that TLD; another one is how >strongly these people will feel attached to that TLD, i.e. whether the TLD >contributes to build any kind of "community identity" for an online group of >people that presently does not have it; a third one is whether the new TLD >will spawn innovative uses of the DNS or enable innovative services. None of >these is directly connected to monetary value, and it is quite disturbing to >me that an organization like ICANN, which is meant to steward scarce global >public resources in the interest of the entire community of the Internet, >still seems to have such a partial and narrow view of where the value of the >Internet itself lies. >Hong > > > > >On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu > > wrote: > > > http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm > > > > ICANN has published a paper from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, > > regarding the use of auctions to award new TLD strings in case of > > contention. > > > > http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf > > > > I think it would be important that the At Large speaks up. The model > > proposed in the document is a purely capitalistic one. It is based on > > the assumption that all gTLDs are created to make as much money as > > possible. Smaller, community based TLDs seem quite difficult to launch > > in such context. > > > > The mere possibility of auctions will actually generate contention on > > some strings. The little guys wishing to establish a not-for-profit TLD > > will be outplayed by the wealthy ones. > > > > A public forum has been established at > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. > > Comments to auction-consultation(a)icann.org before 8 September 2008. > > > > -- > > Patrick Vande Walle > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey
by JFC Morfin Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

At 19:31 09/08/2008, Bill Silverstein wrote: > > At 08:49 09/08/2008, Bill Silverstein wrote: > >>Many of his recent comments have been relevant to the internet > >>community, but not to the issues of ICANN. > > > > Would you mean there would be a difference ? > > > > jfc > >I would say yes. The purpose and function of ICANN is the operation of >the Name and number service of the internet (ie. DNS, registry, registrar, >etc.) > >For example, on censorship: The greatfirewall of chine: No., Free speech >in Iran, no. A registrar canceling the domain name: bushsucks.com w/o >notice ,Yes. Bill, I obviously agree with you. My jest was to underline that @larges are not dedicated to ICANN, but ICANN is dedicated to @larges as the Internet Community front runners (lead users, common consumers reps). @larges come first. Everything of concern to @larges should raise a question at ICANN: "Is ICANN in a situation to help?". @larges are the ICANN lead customers. This is why they were to initially be 50% of its BoD. The US industrial dominance has changed the bylaws, but cannot change the reality of life. If one way or another we cannot restore that - at least in the way de BoD listen to us, I am afraid it will be finished with ICANN except as golden TLD syndicate. This is at least the way I and many others read the NTIA. It seems very difficult, from the very beginning, to protect ICANN interests against their will. The recent "Internet for the Rich" strategy IMHO calls for a very quick review with our help and endorsement, _if_ they want to remain credible to Govs and Civil Society. jfc

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey
by NameCritic Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

Now thats funny, I don't care who you are. Chris McElroy ----- Original Message ----- From: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> To: "Bill Silverstein" <icann-list(a)sorehands.com>; <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey > At 08:49 09/08/2008, Bill Silverstein wrote: >>Many of his recent comments have been relevant to the internet >>community, but not to the issues of ICANN. > > Would you mean there would be a difference ? > > jfc > > > PS. I had actually two reasons to question Beau : > > - to understand if he was genuine when asking what non-American > really think about ICANN the biaised way he did (most do not mind the > USG, they mind the "stakholder"'s dominance). As several others, for > 8 years, I try to understand who "Jeff Willians" really _are_, what > is exactly their role and the wheight they carry in the Internet > community, who pays and inform them, who support or use them. This is > why I am always interested in the activists who are serious about > Jeff Williams, resurecting them once they have been dealt with, and > being unnecessarily rude (a way increase the attention). > > - to help ALAC to get real. If their mechanic cannot cope with "Jeff > Williams" there is a bug or a civilization issue : who is to be the > reference - the mechanic or the person. This is very important : if > ALAC choses to protect instead of improve the mechanic while the WSIS > consensus (including the USA) said that the Information Society had > to be "people centered, à charactère humain, centrada en la persona", > then we definitly know on which side people are to be. > > Let get real. If ALAC wants to be/stay as a stable community helper, > it must able to survive scores of Jeff Williams, from 200 national > ALAC communities in 250 languages. This means considering a similar > approach to ISOC which consider an adequate relational tool. It must > also consider an adequate structural architecture. The whole ICANN > problem everyone can observe through the IIC issue is the one that > the French GAC VP asked Peter Dungate Trush : > - you say that ICANN's structure adequately survived the last 10 > years and has just to be consolidated. > - some do not think it was adequate. > - how do you know that a centralized American English ASCII oriented > structure would be adequate to a Multilingual distributed Internet. > > If ALAC wants to really help ICANN, it must first to become "Jeff > Williams Proof" in English, then in French, in Chinese, and in 250 > national languages (ISO 3166) and then in 30.000 geolingual > environments (ISO 639-6 - LS640). > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey
by Bill Silverstein Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

> At 08:49 09/08/2008, Bill Silverstein wrote: >>Many of his recent comments have been relevant to the internet >>community, but not to the issues of ICANN. > > Would you mean there would be a difference ? > > jfc > > I would say yes. The purpose and function of ICANN is the operation of the Name and number service of the internet (ie. DNS, registry, registrar, etc.) For example, on censorship: The greatfirewall of chine: No., Free speech in Iran, no. A registrar canceling the domain name: bushsucks.com w/o notice ,Yes. Virus infection vectors, No. DNS virus infection by DNS poisoning, yes. All of the above are important to internet users, but ICANN has a limited charter and should stay within that charter. > PS. I had actually two reasons to question Beau : > > - to understand if he was genuine when asking what non-American > really think about ICANN the biaised way he did (most do not mind the > USG, they mind the "stakholder"'s dominance). As several others, for > 8 years, I try to understand who "Jeff Willians" really _are_, what > is exactly their role and the wheight they carry in the Internet > community, who pays and inform them, who support or use them. This is > why I am always interested in the activists who are serious about > Jeff Williams, resurecting them once they have been dealt with, and > being unnecessarily rude (a way increase the attention). > > - to help ALAC to get real. If their mechanic cannot cope with "Jeff > Williams" there is a bug or a civilization issue : who is to be the > reference - the mechanic or the person. This is very important : if > ALAC choses to protect instead of improve the mechanic while the WSIS > consensus (including the USA) said that the Information Society had > to be "people centered, à charactère humain, centrada en la persona", > then we definitly know on which side people are to be. > > Let get real. If ALAC wants to be/stay as a stable community helper, > it must able to survive scores of Jeff Williams, from 200 national > ALAC communities in 250 languages. This means considering a similar > approach to ISOC which consider an adequate relational tool. It must > also consider an adequate structural architecture. The whole ICANN > problem everyone can observe through the IIC issue is the one that > the French GAC VP asked Peter Dungate Trush : > - you say that ICANN's structure adequately survived the last 10 > years and has just to be consolidated. > - some do not think it was adequate. > - how do you know that a centralized American English ASCII oriented > structure would be adequate to a Multilingual distributed Internet. > > If ALAC wants to really help ICANN, it must first to become "Jeff > Williams Proof" in English, then in French, in Chinese, and in 250 > national languages (ISO 3166) and then in 30.000 geolingual > environments (ISO 639-6 - LS640). > >

1 0