Re: [ga] Alternative roots

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 23 Apr 2001, at 10:43, Eric Dierker wrote:

> 
> Kristy McKee wrote:
> 
> > 1)  We do not want to introduce new TLDs into the USG Root that are
> > already in use by other Roots.
> >
> 
> If it is competition, yes we do! I don't but who am I.

No we don't!  That's a collision in the DNS and will cause problems.  
The business issue and the DNS issue are two very different issues.  
While both are important, the collision factor is a huge "Don't."  

Competition among registries is fine, but not in a collision.  There 
cannot be a collision,  period.  .BIZ is just an example - representative 
of any TLD collision.  It happens to be the one selected for this round of 
"new" TLDs.

The business part of the issue really doesn't belong in this part of the 
discussion, IMO.  I don't see where the GA would have any impact one 
way or the other. 

> 
> >
> > 2)  We do want the USG Root service to create a process for
> > communicating and collaborating with the other Root services.
> >
> 
> First show us the benefit to ICANN and compliance with the MOU, White
> Paper, the RFCs, Tax and corporate law, and the DoC and subcontractor
> (registry and registrar)agreements. Non-profits collaborating with profits
> is a sticky wicket at best.

One benefit to ICANN is reduction of legal problems.  Had they not 
accepted applications for pre-existing TLDs, it would have been a non-
issue.  "Collaboration" may not be the correct term.  "Cooperation" may 
be a more applicable term.  It is not a contract issue since the other 
TLDs have not applied for contracts with ICANN.

The MOU states that ICANN will maintain the stability of the internet.  
To do so, ICANN will have to communicate with others who operate 
within the DNS.  Whether some wish to recognize the inevitability of 
this or not, it is a simple fact.  All entities must at least communicate 
with the intention of avoiding collisions and form understandings wrt to 
cooperation.  That does not mean that any entity controls another.  It 
simply means coming to the table to talk and agree to cooperate.  It 
does not have to be adversarial as it seems to be now.

> 
> >
> > 2a) The TLDA seems like the natural choice - they are already making
> > progress in this arena - the ICANN should join the TLDA.
> >

Once membership is opened, DoC/ICANN would be eligible to join the 
TLDA, of course.  DoC is a TLD holder (com/net/org).

> 
> There is a certain conflict of interest within the GA, but it seems that
> defacto the TLDA has already joined the GA.

There is no conflict of interest other than that imagined by those who do 
not wish to understand what the purpose is for a TLDA.  The TLDA as 
an organization has not joined anything.  Individuals who may become 
members of the TLDA are also members of the GA.  If the GA were 
organized in a fashion where organizations could join, perhaps the 
TLDA or others would do so.  I don't know.  Suffice it to say that the 
TLDA is nothing more than a trade association whose members will be 
TLD holders and are most likely also domain name holders in ICANN 
TLDs.  There is no conflict of interest in any case.

> 
> >
> > I would take it one step further and say the ICANN should work with all
> > other Root Services; but understand not everyone agrees with me...
> >
> >
> 
> I like cooperation but concessions will have to be made and DoC approval
> is a must.
> 

DoC should be advocating communication with all interested parties, 
including the roots and TLD holders.  The MOU language promotes 
cooperation.  Right now the MOU is being greatly offended due to a lack 
of communication and cooperative effort.  However, it begins with 
ICANN.  It is a shame, IMO, that it took a new.net to make people take 
notice that there are more entities involved in the DNS than just 
ICANN/DoC.  There is still a general lack of understanding of how the 
world will use and is using the system.

People on this list have said "prove that China has launched a root."  I 
say it doesn't have to be proven on this list.  Anyone can go to the 
CNNIC site and read it.  It's there.  If China wishes to control its 
citizens' access to areas of the Internet, it will strive to do so.  The 
important factor is that they have launched a root and there is nothing 
that the USG or ICANN can do about it.  It will occur with others, 
whether by governments or private entities.  There are multilingual roots 
and TLD servers that are being recognized by users and these will 
continue to occur. There are several roots outside the US and that trend 
will continue.

 It would be in everyone's best interests to acknowledge and work with it 
rather than stubbornly refuse and, in doing so, cause collisions in the 
DNS that will in turn cause users untold misery.

As for .BIZ, in which I obviously have a vested interest, a collision 
caused by ICANN/DoC's duplication of it will cause a serious problem 
for everyone.  ICANN says it doesn't matter and it's not their doing.  
Wrong, wrong, wrong.  We may not be able to prevent it, but we will 
certainly see the results.  For those who want to label it competition, go 
right ahead.  The label is really immaterial.  We are not competing with 
ICANN.  We were simply running a registry and ICANN decided it was 
okay to run a duplicate registry without regard to the consequences.  
I've said it before...  so be it.  The MOU has no meaning to ICANN/DoC 
then.

Leah


--
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