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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

WXW and all,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello NameCritic,
>
> Seems to me the only one sensitive about it is you.
>
> The fact is that the alt.roots are irrelevant.  The only reason they
> get any mention at all is because some of their advocates are noisy.

  I am not sure which Alt.Root you are referring to WXW.  The
Competitive and Inclusive Root structures as well as registries
are what I believe that Chirs is referring to.  If not, than
he should be.

>
>
> The alt.roots have yet to accomplish anything significant, including
> any reasonable level of visibility.  Heck, 1% visibility combined
> between all of them would even be a SIGNIFICANT increase.

  I don't know about the "Alt.Roots" to which you refer.  The
"Competitive and Inclusive" roots and registries, have more than
16m registrants presently.  New.net alone has this many registrants.

>
>
> Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 3:10:36 AM, NameCritic wrote:
>
> > He is correct. No law can be passed against it that would stand up
> > Internationally. The US cannot dictate what other countries do. If an
> > alternate root was located in France or some other country then the law
> > would have no effect whatsoever. I would really like to see people quit
> > treating this as if the US is the only concern here. The Internet is
> > INTERNATIONAL. International Network. Got it now? A US law can only be
> > effective in the US. Alternate roots can be located anywhere. There are even
> > a lot of countries that would welcome it and the last time I checked they
> > don't abide by US Law.
>
> > What would ICANN do then? Have all the users who surf the alternate roots
> > arrested? I wouldn't put it past them, due to their arrogant attitude that
> > one government contract somehow empowered them to make the rules the world
> > will all now live by. The ICANN BoD needs a reality check. They aren't that
> > big or that powerful.
>
> > There will always be other root systems get used to it, deal with it, and
> > get over the ego rush ICANN.
>
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
> > To: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
> > Cc: "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <harald@alvestrand.no>; "Milton Mueller"
> > <mueller@syr.edu>; <ga-roots@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:17 AM
> > Subject: Re[2]: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response to
> > response)
>
> >> 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
> >>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
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 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