Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger....

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Alexander,
your honnest response calls for some information/remarks.

1. Bradley was just making a point with his example. If you want
     to use that example as a general example, it woudl be faire to
     use it in the Thomas Edisson's time context, when Telephone
     was emerging as the Internet is doing now.

2. there is an unique name space. There may be several semantics
    but the DN structure which associates the Registry (TLD),  the
    targeted site (SLD) and the hosts/application (3LD+) is unique.

    That structure was first used in 1978 for the German and Italian
    public data services to the US nets. We used then the ISO 3
    letter list and used the latin semantic (TLD first as it is named)
    without dot. The first DN registered was ITAFORDSALES and
    the second GERFORDSALES. By early 80s we intgrated the
    X121 numbering scheme in more than 40 countries (X121).
    The owner would certainly win http://sales.ford.it in an UDRP
    today.

    This name space is shared with others, hence different problems.
    The ones you know are the Phone, the Trade Marks, the EDI,
    the postal stuff. If I created a DN by your address and used it, you
    would be entitled to UDRP me. RFCs are provisionning some
    arrangements to clarify the use. Prefixes are among them:
    a phone number is a part of the name space. With http:// as
    a prefix it is a site address, with tel:// as a prefix it is a telephone
    switch board.

     GAC has said that TLD could not be trade marked, because
     (among others) it would mean that the DNs coiuld be trade
     marked twice and in diferent classes.... But IP is not TMarking.
     TM are to warranty against confusion. Name ownership comes
     from you name, your logo, your business usage.

     All this to say that the DNS is not the master of the name space.
     It is only one of its several servants. With languages, academies,
     history, WIPO, etc... And the iCANN is not the owner of the DNS,
     just one user. The USG (as the General Acountant understood it)
     is not the owner of the root (just of the a-root machine) which is
     simply the directory of the machines I use to route my calls. DNS
     improvement - according to RFCs - will soon change the legal
     vision of the system - the multi-roots as proposed a few days ago,
     the sub-root include as we develop.


3. The wording "alternative root" is totally wrong. It only describes
     a commercial operation named AlterNIC.

     There are two things:

     - the inclusive name space. Which includes (hence its name)
       all the possible names to be used on the internet.

     - the augmented root : the roots including the legacy TLDs
       (iCANN) and all the others. Probably 2000.

     What you want to refer to is the TLD industry.

     The point you defend is a  "TLD Divide" by a leader of this
      industry attempting an industry hi-jacking.


4. The name space and the TLD industries are not Far West
     where an independent large cattle owner could do what he
     wants. There is law and order there too.

     The iCANN has been set up by the USG to serve that
      industry. It independently and against its charter decided
      to run it. This has to be corrected. To everyone benefit.
      Let assume you leaved in Eastern Gemany and had to use
      only the Trabant cars. You would have been happy if they
      had some competition: event without changing your car
      maker you would have seen improvements in the car. (I
      accept that Germany has reunited and that cars are far
      better for everyone now)

     BTW why does iCANN behave as it does? Prfobably because
     the name space is shared with TMs and that Staff tries to give
     stability to TM rather than to DN owners. This is a mistake as
     they are here to represent DN owners (at he end of the day
     Joop will win and iCANN will have to take care of DN holders :-) )

Jefsey



On 11:45 13/04/01, Alexander Svensson said:

>Dear Bradley,
>
>first of all, thanks for taking *time* to write down
>your thoughts!
>
> > Let's take the hypothetical situation where Verizon was granted the
> > authority from The FCC and CPUC to provide duplicate area codes and phone
> > number strings already switched by Pacific Bell. And let's say that
> > someone's child was gravely injured in an automobile accident one evening.
> > And let's just suppose that the police attempted to contact the parents of
> > the gravely injured minor child so that immediate consent could be granted
> > to save the life of that child. Suppose the phone number that the police
> > had on record was one of the colliding duplicates and the "other" party
> > was reached via phone instead of the parents of the innocent child.
> >
> > Now, suppose that child dies as a result of this arbitrary administrative
> > approval of colliding phone numbers by the US Government and the
> > California Public Utilities Commission that had usurped the ability of the
> > law enforcement and medical community to reliably contact the childs
> > parents in time.
>
>I'm afraid I disagree with the way the proponents of
>alternative roots argue. They may argue that they need
>no authority to set up an alt.root and that's just fine,
>but then I find it hard to understand how they can
>complain that others are not limiting themselves to
>the TLDs left over by the alt.root operators. It
>comes down to the question whether "being there first"
>is sufficient for claiming a Top Level Domain.
> From the U.S. legal point of view, it seems it isn't
>(at least that is how I understand the court decisions
>about TM rights in TLDs), and although I understand
>that many participants in the GA are personally running
>such alt.roots, I don't think they have a higher moral
>right to any TLD than anybody else.
>(Including ICANN, that is.)
>
>I also don't think your phone and child story depicts the
>situation adequately. The alt.root phone company would have
>to be a company who e.g. finds and uses a portion of the
>number space which has not been previously occupied (e.g.
>all numbers between 12xxxxxx and 14xxxxxx). So does that
>mean the alt.phone company gains a permanent right in this
>part of the number space? Hardly.
>
>Alternative root TLDs will lead to alternative resolution
>unless there is some kind of Meta-ICANN making binding
>decisions on both the ICANN/USG root and the alternative
>roots. For phone companies, there is a hierarchical structure
>in place: ITU recommendations, national administrations,
>phone companies etc. But I fail to see a public call for
>such a Meta-ICANN. If the alt.roots had as many users as
>the ICANN/USG roots, they would suffer from the same
>problems and attract the same actors as ICANN does today.
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html