Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net
Sandy and all assembly members,
Sandy Harris wrote:
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
> > A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> > doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.
> It is stronger than that. If the "protocol community" -- the designers and
> implementers of the Internet -- tell us something won't work, then it
> would be absurd for ICANN, or anyone else, to say "we want it anyway".
As one of the designers and Implimenters of the Internet, I have learned
that almost anything CAN work, if their is impetus for it to work. It is
almost always a matter of finding a way to make "It" work.
> "Multiple roots" work only if either they are entirely private, not made
> public on the general Internet or there is some mechanism to make certain
> they are all consistent.
This is of course a false statement. "Multiple Roots" have been working
for better than 5 years now. The evidence is quite clear that many different
"Varieties" of the "Multiple Root" concept are not only compatible, but
> If they are private, then the "alternate root" folk have no complaint about
> a .biz in the public root.
Also not entirely true if the root structure is shared. If not, than you have
a TRUE "Alternative Root" structure. However none of the so called
"Alternative Root" implimentors are a TRUE Alt-Root, but rather a
Inclusive or a Competitive and Inclusive Root structure. As the current
Legacy/USG Root structure is a "Public Resource" they are, or should be
obliged to cooperate with other Root structures were there are like
TLD's. This can be achieved and would be complementary as well
as competitive to one another of the various potential root structures.
We [INEGRoup] refer to this as "Shared Roots".
> Anytime you create private names, you take the
> risk that public name will conflict later.
Again not necessarily. (See above comments)
> The only people who might have
> a complaint are customers who feel they were misled about what registration
> in a private root gave them. If they were misled, they should sue the
To my knowledge the only organization that is being misleading presently
> > However, the Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol
> > community" or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> > users.
> Of course.
> > It is those users who have the right and obligation to decide
> > what kind of Internet that will be, the single, "authoritative" (I just
> > love that audacious presumption!) root or multiple roots.
> It's harder than that. Technically, the only viable choices are a single
> authoritative root or multiple roots with some mechanisim that enforces
> consistency among them all.
Exactly right! An this comment seems to conflict with your previous comments
> ICANN, for all its flaws, is a mechanism that at least:
> attempts to be international
> claims to work in the public interest
Yes, the ICANN BoD and staff "CLAIM" to work in the public interest.
However they have yet to demonstrate that they have done so.
> pays lip service to ideas like consensus and participaion of
> all stakeholders
Indeed! And "Lip Service" is all it is too!
> has a realistic hope of having the US gov't turn over control
> of root DNS to it
Unfortunately this may be correct... :(
> Until and unless I see concrete proposals for an alternative to ICANN
> that is at least as plausible on those criteria, my position will be
> that we must have single authoritative root with ICANN running it, so
> we'd better work awfully hard on improving ICANN.
We can appreciate you point of view here. However it is becoming more
and more apparent that improving ICANN is a endeavor that has limited
> > And most of my questions were not answered at all.
> > Bill Lovell
> > Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > > Bill Lovell wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Some relevant questions concerning this letter:
> > > >
> > > >On what basis is ICANN claiming "consensus?"
> As we all know, this is based on the outcome of seriously flawed ICANN
> > > >What is the basis for the statement "the concept
> > > >of multiple roots clearly leads to the potential for
> > > >conflicting top level domains and consequent
> > > >Internet instability," and if that is true, why is
> > > >it establishing a .biz TLD, when there already is
> > > >one of those, which could bring about the
> > > >very collision it decries?
> Remember the Dogbert line, when he's being a product manager and is
> asked if they've had any complaints. "None we've listened to."
> There is one authoritative public root, as there always has been.
> Establishing a .biz there is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, no
> matter what is in various private roots, or how thoswe private
> spaces have been marketed.
> Are there any conflicts? Dogbert says "Not in the public space."
> I agree.
> > > The basis for this statement is the position of the IETF, as summarised by
> > > the IAB.
> > > This item has also been debated at the PSO General Assembly some 10 days
> > > ago, and there has not been one single voice in favour of multiple roots.
> > > Incidentally, I have been one among others who spoke in favour of
> > > IAB/ICANN's position, but of course made it clear that I was speaking only
> > > as "a member of the DNSO/GA".
> > >
> > > I don't want to underestimate the importance of the different political POVs
> > > on the multiple roots, but since this issue has negligible support (if any
> > > at all) in the Protocol community, and specifically at the IETF, ICANN
> > > should not do anything else than dismiss it.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Roberto
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > --
> > Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
> > possibly be explained at:
> > "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> > GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
> > Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
> > mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
> > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> > Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html