[ga-roots] response

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Response to Mueller's:
> Analysis of the Crispin Internet-draft. 

Unfortunately, Mueller apparently did not actually read the draft, 
so it is hard to respond.  However, to correct a couple of inaccuracies:

> The draft is based on two assumptions, both easily questioned. 
> 
> One: "I implicitly postulate that multiple roots exist and are in heavy
> use and that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) has somehow approved of them."
> 
> That assumption is self-contradictory.

The draft is not based on this assumption -- quite the contrary.  In
fact, that there is a contradiction in that assumption is a FUNDAMENTAL
POINT of the draft.  That is, the contradiction is explicitly recognized
in the draft, and indeed, that contradiction leads to the fundamental
conclusion: ICANN *cannot* approve multiple roots.  Indeed, as a matter
of policy, ICANN must do everything it can to discourage them, which
implies that ICANN must never give any credence to TLDs that were
developed through alternate roots, since such acknowledgement would 
simply encourage the proliferation of alternate roots and alternated 
TLDs. 

[...]

> Two: he assumes that multiple roots would not converge on a coordinated
> zone file.  In other words, his very definition of a "multiple root
> regime" assumes that registries, Internet service providers, and
> consumers will heedlessly create and buy conflicting names in a
> fragmented name space. 
> 
> That assumption is inconsistent with what we know about the the
> economics of standards competition, and for the most part is
> contradicted by the current behavior of alternate root operators. 

Both clauses above are simply incorrect.

1) In fact, the economics of standards competition provides an array of
examples of non-convergence, and I discuss this in the paper.  Shapiro
and Varian, in their chapter "Waging a Standards War", give several
examples: Nintendo vs Sony in the game console market have evolved to a
duopoly; the multiple competing standards for digital phones, and HDTV
are other examples, and they explicitly discuss the *fact* that
standards competition may not lead to convergence.  Given that Mueller
is supposed to have some expertise in this area, his inaccuracy on this
point is especially egregious. 

There is no way to predict with certainty what might happen in a large
scale standards war over root zones, and indeed (as I mention in the
paper) political or cultural factors may completely overshadow any
economic considerations.  

2) The current behavior of the alternate root operators, in fact, is a 
clear indication of precisely the opposite of what Mueller claims.  The 
history of the alternate root movement is notable for the strife -- 
Richard Sexton's refusal to cooperate with name.space is a recent 
example, and an even more recent example is illustrated by this 
fragment from an email on the ORSC list, in an exchange between Joe Baptista,
Einar Stefferud, and Jefsy Morfin:

> From: Joe Baptista <baptista@pccf.net>
> Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:19:40 -0400
> To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
> Cc: admin@tlda.org
> Subject: Re: [ORSC.DOMAIN-POLICY] Re: [TLDA.ADMIN] Fwd: Re: [ORSC.TECH]
>   does the ORSC want to   end up in a court of law   with little ol
>   me???
> Reply-To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
> 
> At 01:01 AM 1/1/70 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hello Jefsey --  ORSC is not removing Dr. Joe's TLDs from our ORSC 
> root! 
> >
> >My problem with Dr. Joe is that he threatened me (and ORSC) on public
> >lists, with court involvement, without any effort to contact me (or ORSC)
> >in private
> >to discuss his problems.
> 
> This is completely untrue.  And I can produce documentation to that
> effect.  You however were not contacted - richard sexton was contacted.  I
> spent several days just trying to get the orsc to remove the original pccf
> roots when diebold incorporated went wacko and disconnected the pccf arpa
> roots.  I was ignored.  I eventually just gave up and sexton only changed
> the root file when the new diebold arpas were ready for root service.  The
> same situation appled to the SETDNS program.  In fact there are public
> archives on the netsol domain-policy list in which i made it clear the pccf
> arpas should be removed and sexton said i was over reacting.
> 
> So you see steff - i have extensive documentation that i made every attempt
> to reduce the orsc's and diebold liability to us - and we were ignored.
> 
> As for your claim that I threatened you with court involvment - well thats
> nonsense.

...and so on.  One can't get a very good feeling for the stability 
offered by these root zone operators.

new.net is using TLD names that collide with prior "claims".  Examples 
of *current* name collisions can be multiplied easily.

In fact, the history of the alternate root community is notable for 
its lack of cooperation -- indeed, it has been notable for bitter 
strife for its entire existence.

[...]


-- 
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