Re: [ALSC-Forum] Please

[Jefsey Morfin]

Eric,
We could ask ourselves a few questions. I see a possible alternative 
logic.The target would be to use the future worldwide whois as the 
reference for @large member definition. This could make some pressure on 
the ccTLDs for them to join the VeriSign project ad get the @large 
registrations. ICP-3 document and its BC support could only be SAIC, IBM, 
ATT, Telcos e-commerce lobbying strategy to make sure there is not too much 
registrant-leaking. Mat be to afraid GAC Members so they do not venture too 
soon in national/regional policies. Strange that the main ICP-3 argument is 
that the users would be confused by free TLDs but are not by business 
mammoths TLDs. Things are so clean with NeuLvel and Affilias.

Could the Security meeting and the 666 instead of 991 be just to delay and 
focus the debate on other points to distract us and the press. Just the 
time they put the things together and it is too late to change them? Could 
this only mean they don't really care about the BoD because ICANN and DNS 
have no real importance. Could it be that what counts is only controlling 
names and directories? Could it be that Real Names, IDNs and 3/4 of the DN 
under the same corporation be a major victory of competition fostering?

If feel that Chinese and Vietnamese and several other ccTLDs consider there 
may be questions there. I hope the EEC joins them soon. In the meanwhile we 
could ask ourselves if long term security and mid-term stability of the 
network is not "manu pulite".

Jefsey

On 05:58 04/11/01, Eric Dierker said:

>I note that the ALSC is scheduled to break in on other meetings again
>and throw their pointers and displays in order to "inform us" as to
>their activities throughout the ICANN meetings.
>
>Please address the only two important issues. 9 seats and membership
>criteria.
>
>And if you choose to go on with the mundane please previously accept my
>apologies for rudely interrupting you and demanding you get to the real
>points.  Because if you waste our time for the thirtieth time on all the
>work you have done while ignoring these two important issues I will
>disturb your performance by asking real questions.
>
>Also please do not ignore the consensus reached here for 9 seats and
>individual memberships and no fees.
>
>I look forward to your presentations but please do no insult us
>dotcommoners!
>
>Sincerely,