RE: [council] Agenda items....

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Peter:
Thank you for introducing that issue.
If Mr. Lynn is really saying that to DoC, I think we should strongly discourage him from doing so.

The DNS protocol assumes a unique root, but it does not specify which root. The decision where to point a name server or client is (and in a free society, must be) an entirely voluntary decision. 

Thus, when Stuart Lynn or the IAB or anyone else runs to a governmental authority and claims that the existence of another root is "destabilizing," I have two concerns:

1. Is he angling for legislation or regulations banning alternative efforts? I hope not. The Web would be more "stable" and less confusing if Netscape and Microsoft didn't produce alternate browsers. The world would be more stable and more compatible if we all spoke the same language. But do we really want to stifle change and diversity?

2. Lynn begs the question as to who is obligated to coordinate with whom. To the Pacific Root and other smaller efforts supporting TLDs that predate ICANN, ICANN is the encroacher. To ICANN, Pacific Root and other alts are the encroachers. Obviously, ICANN is now the dominant root and the others are small. But the roles could easily be reversed in a short time.  

One of the issues we need to be aware of in this discussion is antitrust liability (that archaic word is what we use in the US - the rest of you refer more sensibly to "competition policy"). That is, whatever policy we adopt must not be designed to prop up a monopoly in root server operation and domain name registration services. 

We also need to be aware of the international and multilingual implications of the alternate root debate. Many countries which want to develop their own path of Internet development may choose something very similar to what we now call "alternate roots." 

>>> "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> 04/19/01 02:01AM >>>
I'd suggest the introduction of discussion on alternate roots.

Stuart Lynn has presented to the US DOC the idea that alternate roots
_could_ undermine the stability of the Internet. Specifically, collisions in
namespace (i assume he means "A" root and "alternate roots") could cause
users to surf to web pages they were not expecting, etc...

Stuart suggests ICANN have contracts with ISPs- but he doesn't say what the
"quid pro quo" would be.

Since he has brought this up, we should open the topic.

New.Net HAS contracts with ISPs, with financial incentives, to place their
20 new TLDs in the nameservers of those (large) ISPs, such as Earthlink.
They are well funded, and will continue to aggressively market their deals.

In fact, I attended a recent ISP conference in Baltimore, and New.Net had a
substantial presence in the trade show.

While this is a difficult and sensitive issue, eventually we (the NC) will
be expected to advise the Board on Policy and on our official position.

Peter de Blanc

P.S. I have no report on this, I am just suggesting we pay attention.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Paul M. Kane
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:04 AM
To: NC Intake; names council
Subject: [council] Agenda items....


The intake Committee is considering the Agenda for the next meeting May
9th. Are there any items that you would like addressed/included?

Thanks

Paul
Chair - Intake Committee