DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] No Choice

On 26 Apr 2001, at 13:04, Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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?

There is not one organization for all roots.  Each is independent, which 
is as it should be.  However, the goal is for them to communicate with 
each other.  Most of them do that when it comes to notifying each other 
when TLDs are loaded, server changes for TLDs, etc.  

Coordinating those communications is a worthy effort, IMO.  
Cooperation among all roots and TLD holders can only help to maintain 
Internet stability.  That has been the goal all along.  Had that 
cooperation been there, most of the contentious issues we face now 
would not have occurred.


> Sincerely,
>             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

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

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