DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

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

Twist and turn.  Go for it, Kent.  

On 3 May 2001, at 7:43, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 11:55:36PM -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> > So very incorrect.  It is ICANN that will cause the  pandemonium with 
> > setting the precedent making duplication okay.  It is ICANN's 
> > responsibility to avoid it.
> Nope.  It was the alternate roots responsibility to avoid it, by 
> cooperating with whatever generally accepted process were in place.  
> That is precisely what perhaps hundreds of companies who could *easily* 
> have created new TLDs, but instead chose to abide by the generally 
> accepted rules.  

Generally accepted by whom?  Most of the decisions were made in 
secret and were engineered by a select few.

> > > For all its faults, it is a simple fact that ICANN has conferred with a
> > > far, far larger range of stakeholders than any of the alternate roots --
> > > new.net, the largest of those efforts, doesn't have a hundredth of the
> > > representational infrastructure that ICANN does; the other groups, like
> > > ORSC and TLDA, are basically just little clubs. 
> > 
> > It has not conferred with the users nor has it paid any attention to them 
> > when they have reacted.  It has conferred with its select backers and 
> > made a show of offering the majority of stakeholders a voice - which it is 
> > doing its best to eliminate as we speak and which it ignores 
> > consistently.
> You are of course speaking for the ORSC and the TLDA in the above 
> paragraph.  ICANN *has* conferred with the users, and has reacted. This 
> is simple fact.

No I am not.  Most of the users never had a chance.  Thousands could 
not register to vote in the elections.  Those who managed to ask 
questions were ignored and lip service was paid to the message boards. 
 Now it has become apparent that the voice of non-coms and supposed 
members will likely be silenced altogether.  This is the reaction to 

> > No use of syntax or semantics will change the fact that several roots 
> > and hundreds of TLDs exist and will continue to do so.  If trends 
> > continue, those numbers will increase, not decrease.  There will be 
> > duplicates of the major  TLDs in the USG root, causing more chaos - all 
> > because ICANN insists it is okay to operate that way.
> No.  It's all because a bunch of opportunists are trying to exploit a 
> power vacuum.

That's right.  ICANN is exploiting power.  Absolute power corrupts 

> > Regardless of the rhetoric you and others backing ICANN and special 
> > interests may use, the fact is that there are not separate DNS's.  It is 
> > all one system and the most illiterate user understands it once it is 
> > explained.
> Right.  And hence it is totally irresponsible to be creating alternate 
> roots. 

They've been around for over 17 years.  Now that more people know 
about them, it's suddenly irresponsible.

> > As I've said over and over again, time will show the error in judegement 
> > shown by ICANN if this duplication is entered into the USG root.
> The error in judgement is yours.

I didn't create the duplicate.  ICANN did.  Everything was running quite 
smoothly for many years.  It still may if DoC avoids the duplication.  If 
not... well, time will tell, won't it.

You have not mentioned the possibility of someone duplicating .com at 
some point.  If it's okay for ICANN to do it, it is certainly okay for 
someone else to do it.  After all, it's separate name space, right?  No 
worries.  You take care of yours, and they'll take care of theirs.  Should 
be fun.

> >  None 
> > of us has to do anything for the chaos to begin.
> You are the one that is contributing chaos.

Not at all, Kent.  We were there first.

> > > 
> > > Yet the TLDA would have us substitute *its* processes (basically being a
> > > member of a club) for selection of new TLD operators over those of
> > > ICANN.  Ain't gonna happen. 
> > 
> > One more time.  The TLDA is a TRADE ASSOCIATION. 
> Precisely.  The TLDA is a part of a bunch of people who are trying to
> use their own standards for TLD approval in place of those developed by

What approval?  Duh, where did it say that TLDA approves TLDs?  If 
there are any standards, they will be technical and it still wont' amount 
to approval.  Once more... TLDA is not a governing body.  

This is tiresome and too time consuming.  Say what you like, Kent.  It 
matters little.


> [...]
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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

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