[ga] No Choice

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

After reading these matters together I have come to the inescapable
conclusion that we must get to work on this matter with urgency.  There
can be no reasonable grounds to suggest that we are not in a postion to
discuss the issues.  If the system is going to work then we should begin
giving input immediately.

Certainly this site is reccomended reading, http://www.adns.net/.  I
note that Mr. Cerf recently commented he had never visited anything to
do with any other root. McClaughlin must be doing a bang up job on
policy issues.

Lets try this for something to debate;

ICANN should enter into cooperation agreements with any root that
requests it.
Which group can lay claim to be representative of all other roots?

Sincerely,

       4)  COMPETITIVE ROOTS [ROOTS]:
            Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)

       Competitive Roots:  To consider and recommend policy improvements
in
       relation to ICANN's relationship with external or competitive
root systems
       including, but not limited to, what has been called alternate or
inclusive
       roots, and colliding top-level domains.



                                                  DNSO Mailling lists
archives

                                                      [nc-intake]


                                        <<< Chronological Index >>>
<<< Thread Index >>>


       [nc-intake] RE: [council] Agenda items.... Alternate Roots and
Stuart...

            To: <council@dnso.org>, <nc-intake@dnso.org>
            Subject: [nc-intake] RE: [council] Agenda items....
Alternate Roots and Stuart...
            From: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
            Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:43:41 -0400
            Cc: "'Milton Mueller'" <Mueller@syr.edu>,
<Paul.Kane@reacto.com>
            Importance: Normal
            In-Reply-To: <sadebb8f.029@gwia201.syr.edu>
            Sender: owner-nc-intake@dnso.org



       To all-

       I reacted prematurely, and without confirmation of Stuart's
words.

       The source is heresay, and not verified by confirmation from
other sources,
       and Stuart himself indicates he did not say it.

       My apologies to Stuart for the hasty mis-quote.

       Nevertheless- I feel the NC should begin discussion on the
subject of
       alternate roots, especially the new.net well-financed contractual
deals,
       their potential impact on the stability of the Internet, and the
NC advice
       to the Board.

       Let us not ignore this like the Ostrich.

       Peter

       -----Original Message-----
       From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
       Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:19 AM
       To: council@dnso.org; nc-intake@dnso.org; Paul.Kane@reacto.com;
       pdeblanc@usvi.net
       Subject: RE: [council] Agenda items....


       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



--
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