RE: [ga] Question No. 1
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:19 PM
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:00:26PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > The practical application is that;
> > ICANN cannot ignore the contextual referents of the other root-zone
> > publishers.
> On the contrary, ICANN really has no choice but to ignore the entities
> you call "root-zone publishers".
The contextual referent is not the entity. How do you disagree? Are you
saying that context is irrelevent? That's how we got here in the first
> It is in contractual relationships
> with numerous entities for whom the assumption of a single
> authoritative root zone under ICANN custody is fundamental. The
> largest of these contracting entities is the USG, but every single
> other entity involved also has a justified expectation that
> ICANN will
> carry out the mandate of preserving the authority of that single root
Ignoring your "argument from authority" for the moment, the other root-zone
publishers have been taking great pains to avoid collisions with each other
and the ICANN root zone. All of these are entities acting within their own
context but, trying to allow for the existance of meta-contextual relations.
This is actually a sign of good faith, IMHO. There are only two, maybe
three, entities that are not showing such good faith. One of them is ICANN,
by your argument. NameSpace is another. The third entity, whom has not shown
their flag clearly yet, may be New.NET.
The salient point here is that none of them can suppress the other's
existance, activity, or actions. This is an important point. Like it as not,
the others exist in a contingent universe. They WILL impact each other. The
goal is to minimize the impacts and resultant damage. The new player on the
scene (NEW.NET) has sufficient resources, maybe more resources than the
ICANN, unlike the ORSC and other players. The impact of this new player,
with the ICANN, is strictly up to the ICANN. I see NEW.NET as being
passive-aggresive. If they perceive ICANN as being predatory, or
unconscionably obtuse, they may take another course than amiable
negotiation. War is bad for business, but if survival is an issue then war
will occur. I'd rather not see a full-fledged market war in the name space,
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html