Re[2]: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response to response)

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Roeland,

One thing you missed.

If a law was passed making alternative roots illegal (Something I'm
not saying I agree with) it would be understood that current root and
the contractors who are trusted with operating it, would receive
exemption from antitrust and other relevant laws.

Your statement "AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT" is not
actually true.  There are no constitutional issues necessarily that
would be prevent it.

On Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 1:53:51 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> The problem Harald, is that the ICANN doesn't have the authority to make
> that stick and it cannot be given such authority, in the US, without
> violating some fundimental civil rights (laws). Neither can the USG accede,
> to ICANN, such power. They are prohibited by the US Constitution. ICANN *is*
> a California corporation and the USG *does* control the root, currently. The
> only way out of that dilemma is for ICANN to start a root registry and
> publish their own inclusive root zone (something that I've been suggesting
> for a while now). But, that makes the ICANN no better than any other
> inclusive root registry. The only difference will be that the USG has
> already given it a healthy startup boost. 

> It *still* does not preclude the appearance of competitive root registries
> AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT. Regardless of what mr. Crispin would
> like, the US is still not a totalitarian regime. Even were it so,
> jurisdiction outside of the US cannot be compelled to recognise such a law.
> We do not yet, have a world government and are not likely to have one in our
> lifetimes.

> Given that incontrovertible condition, multiple root zones are inevitable if
> market forces present an attractive opportunity for them to exist. In this
> case, the only strategy that makes sense is for ICANN to present such an
> attractive value-proposition that the market is satisfied with their
> offering and won't support other root zones. 

> In short, it becomes a monopoly. Well, in the US, there's a problem with
> that too. It's called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, among others. This means
> that there will be at least two more root registries. There's more, history
> has shown that any market will have at least 3-5% of it's members using
> whatever competitor is available, simply to be cantankerous, if noting else.
> What this means is that any monopolist can never gain more than 95% of a
> given market. This may be sufficient for most historical monopolies, but it
> means that multiple roots are a god given certainty. Whom else do you think
> has that last 5% ... frosty the snowman? No sir, it's competitive root
> registries and 5% of 5M names, times $6 bucks a whack, is still a sizable
> chunk of change and Moore's law has dropped operations cost down to almost
> zip ($0).

> Business drives technology ... always has and always will. It is not the
> place of the technologist to tell the market what it can do. The market will
> flatly reject that. If the technologist doesn't/can't deliver then the
> market will find another technologist that can/will. Kent Crispin's paper is
> nothing more than a technologist's excuse for not getting the job done. If
> the ICANN is stupid enough to accept it as gospel then it is finished. It's
> unenforcible, unimplementable, and just plain dumb. To make matters worse,
> he does not present a single problem that does not already have an
> implemented solution. In short, it's almost pure FUD.

> Thank you. I'm sorry about going on so long.

>> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:55 PM
>> 
>> At 00:40 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>> >Smart service providers won't offer highly
>> >conflicted names, most consumers won't buy them,
>> >and ISPs won't support them. They will converge, or
>> >die. Domain names have no value otherwise. You
>> >can't play with them, or hang them on your wall.
>> 
>> Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will 
>> eventually occur.
>> 
>> It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do 
>> not want to 
>> admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point 
>> where one name 
>> has only one resolution in any DNS service.
>> 
>> ICANN has proposed one way: strict regulation of entries into 
>> a single 
>> root, no conflicts allowed.
>> Name.space, ORSC and others have proposed another way: first 
>> come first 
>> served, talk until tired whenever conflicts occur.
>> New.net has proposed a third way: sell what you want, and 
>> hope to get so 
>> many customers that the others won't dare challenge you.
>> 
>> I personally think that ICANN's way is fairer and less 
>> painful than the 
>> other current proposals; I may be in a minority on that.

> --
> 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



-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:william@userfriendly.com
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net


--
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