On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The problem isn't ICANN,
I suggest you look more closely at what exactly they have produced.
With regard to operational issues, I have followed the general proceedings of ICANN. The results seem to be well considered. For example, the resolutions of .pn and .ps are reasonable and documented.
Other than the USG agreements with NSI, which ICANN is required to follow for operational continuity, I have found no operational decisions by ICANN. Perhaps you could be more explicit?
The UDRP(http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm).
The issue raised here is that NSI is operationally incompetent.
The "cure"(ICANN) is far worse than the illness.
Wresting the whois database and name server operations from NSI will be difficult, even with concerted action by ISPs.
There is no "wresting" to be done. ISPs have a choice where they point their servers, period. That they do not avail themselves of this capability serves to illustrate that it is not important enough to ISPs as an industry.
I conclude that, if the major ISPs desire a change, they will need to work together to move the DNS registry service outside of the US, and be willing to defy unreasonable and irrational US court orders.
See above.
How do you propose to make it work?
There have been several proofs-of-concepts(alternic, eDNS, etc.) that demonstrate the technical feasbility of such a change. Unfortunately, these previous attempts have been conducted by (mostly)well-intentioned technical folks who lacked the business and/or political acumen necessary to be successful. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/