Re: [ga-roots] Re: Criminalization of alt roots

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

The short answer to "why ARNI lost its "property" so easily" is that 
ICANN does not recognize our registry as legitimate if outside their 
framework.  Therefore, they simply "took" the TLD to offer it to a 
competitor for a $50,000 application fee.  They have thus far refused to 
discuss any of the "alt.TLDs" as legitimate and claim they are 
responsible for only their root (the DOC root) regardless of 
consequences. 

We plan to continue our registry, of course.  We have thousands of 
registrations (more than many ccTLDs) and plan to bring in registrars 
via The PacificRoot's SRS. ICANN's duplication of the TLD will cause 
many problems since we cannot have duplications in the DNS hierarchy 
regardless of which root it is in.  ICANN knows this and accuses the 
TLDs outside of their own root of being the culprits rather than simply 
recognizing the existence of entities other than themselves on honoring 
the unique TLD requirement of the DNS.  

Since ICANN is mandated to maintain the stability of the net, this 
action is a deliberate breach of their agreement with the US 
government.  However, the Department of Commerce is even more 
culpable if they allow it to occur.  

Our claim to .BIZ is quite legitimate and is documented in the 
Congressional Record, our petition for Rulemaking and in statements by 
two root managers who have delegated it to me.  ARNI is the manager, 
while I am the TLD holder.  The TLD was first created in 1995 and was 
re-delegated in May, 2000 to me.  

We have repeatedly asked that ICANN discuss this situation and 
recognize that other TLDs and roots exist within the DNS.  The 
existence of the roots are a fact.  We hope that we will succeed in 
opening doors so that all users of the Internet are represented within the 
ICANN framework.  In addition, we hope that the DoC will not introduce 
the first major collider and cause all the associated problems inherent in 
duplicate domain names on a huge scale.  We also do not wish to see 
a duplicate .com/net/org surface somewhere due to this precedent, but 
it is likely to occur.

Regards,

Leah Gallegos

On 3 May 2001, at 2:17, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> FYI - Reposted from the NCDNH Discussion List.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: sergio.baccaglini <sergio.ba@libero.it>
> To: <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Criminalization of alt roots
> 
> I hope not to sound too stupid for this, but I was wondering a few things
> (very simple) about the biz/root matter. I hope someone can clarify my ideas
> because I am afraid there's still some "debris" :
> 
> I suppose that we can somehow consider the root spaces as part of a market,
> as we have the legacy root, the alternate roots and so on.
> Controlling them,the roots, is done by various entities like ICANN or
> Pacificroot  and ORSC, NARSC.
> 
> All of this "operators" try to have the highest number of users, because its
> market success is simply based on the number of surfers using his root and
> services.
> Any of them can try to gain users, making somekind of attractive products.
> 
> A very attractive product is .biz , managed by ARNI.
> 
> Considering the root space as a market (it is a market already) the way
> ICANN operated is somehow out of fair competition. The .biz TLD is a domain,
> so "first come first served".
> It doesn't matter it's a "Top" level domain, the evolution of the domain
> name disputes started from this principle: "first come, first served".  As
> the matter evolved into deeper legal stuff, we correctly applied some
> trademarks concepts. I simply think that at this point ARNI is a more
> authoritative owner of dot-biz than ICANN. I can't argue why ARNI lost its
> "property" so easily. I didn't see much (enough) claim around the biz
> matter,most of all by the alternate  surfers. I really can't understand
> this. This way we see a possible market (?) of roots completely owned by
> ICANN.
> 
> Would it sound too stupid a ""legal action"" against ICANN by ARNI on the
> basis of what is written below?
> 
> TIA
> file://sb
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: patrick@quad.net.au
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-ncdnhc-discuss-4655G@lyris.isoc.org
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 


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