Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root

[Peter Deutsch <pdeutsch at earthlink.net>]

g'day,

Several folks have commented on the part of Dave's message
referring to Karl's lawsuit but I didn't see any response to
his opening remarks, which I think are actually more
relevant for this list.

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> At 04:38 AM 8/1/2002 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> >A case could be made that if ICANN was even *pretending* to serve the public
> >interest, they could at least enter into a *discussion* with the ORSC people.
> 
> One of the tests of an idea that is required in the IETF pertains to
> scaling.  So, please apply your thought to the general case.  It means that
> ICANN would be legitimizing anyone and everyone who chooses to start an
> independent activity.  This is a very bad idea for the stability of the DNS.
> 
> It makes far more sense for ICANN to literally ignore independent
> activities.  And that is exactly what ICANN has done.  To ignore them means
> that ICANN does not pay any attention at all to those other
> activities.  This includes ICANN treating the IANA/ICANN name space as
> self-contained, as in fact it is.  Hence, the only "collisions" that ICANN
> should pay attention to are collisions within the IANA/ICANN DNS.

Without passing judgement on the quality of any single
request for interaction I can't see how, given the mandate
that ICANN claims for itself, it can be argued that ICANN
can or should ignore requests for interaction from folks not
already under the tent.