RE: [ga-roots] ICANN Policy -- revised version

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

On 21 Jun 2001, at 22:19, Dassa wrote:

> 
> |> On 2001-06-17 03:35:12 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> |>
> |> >Dassa, do you have any idea how many roots and TLDs there are |>
> >right now?  Do you know how many online registration systems are |>
> >in place and how many of the TLDs are represented in them? There |>
> >will be a rush?  The rush is on - big time.
> 
> Actually I do, and I am also aware that a large number of TLD's in
> other name spaces to the legacy root have no to very few 2LD's under
> them. However, my reference to a rush was related to the TLD's
> themselves.  It is not difficult to set up a root server and to
> establish a TLD.  No more difficult than setting up a few name
> servers.  If there was the possibility of having a TLD recognised by
> ICANN with little effort, I'm sure a large number of people would jump
> at the chance.  The biggest difficulty in establishing a TLD in any
> name space is to get the clients.

So small is illegitimate?  I guess some of the ccTLDs should be 
kicked off the net then?  Certainly they should not be in the USG 
root if they have only a few SLDs, right?  I guess it's just fine to 
duplicate the smaller ones since only a few SLDs would collide.  It 
would be only a small problem, so why even bother to with it?  If 
someone puts a colliding ccTLD in a root with the potential to gain 
market share, but is small today, that's all right.  OTOH, all small 
enterprises should be closed as well or relegated to non legitimate 
business status  and their names and products stolen by the 
corporations for their own use.  Heck, why not just co-opt all small 
business and nationalize it.  The Soviet Union did it.  They wanted 
to take over the world, too.  Oh, and let's not forget the non-coms.  
Get rid of them, too.  They're just a drain on the corporations and 
they certainly give the IP interests a fit.  And while we're at it, let's 
continue to insure that individuals have no say in the matters 
concerning them.  Why even bother to pretend interest in 
cooperating with the users?  What do they know anyway.

You see, Dassa, it is really just one issue.  A few in a small group 
want to make sure that they control the Internet and would prefer to 
control all commerce and communications.  It's really that simple.  
In order to move ahead with the fleet of tanks, they cannot give an 
inch to a free market.  Johnathan Cohen said it quite well in 
Stockholm.  If ICANN recognizes even one TLD, it will open the 
gates and ICANN would have to recognize claims for legitimate 
TLDs. Cooperation means loss of control.  Instead, ICANN will 
continue its practices of breaking the DNS in the name of "their 
root."  If they allow an at-large to flourish and elect the mandated 
number to the board, they could lose control.  If there is an 
Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency, the few voices 
could be drowned out by those who are most effected.

ICANN is supposed to be a technical coordinating body.  Instead it 
has become a governance and supra-law making body with a 
totally closed agenda.  In addition, it is only doing so via contracts 
and the fact that it has the leading market share.  The board had 
better hope they hold on to that market share.  It's really all they 
have for legitimacy.  

Leah

> 
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> 
> --
> 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