RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

["Jeff Field" <jfield@aaaq.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JandL [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:53 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org; jfield@aaaq.com
> Cc: jp@ADNS.NET
> Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency
>
>
> There is a technical collision in the name space.

I respectfully disagree.  I can only conclude from your comments below that
it is a marketing collision (or problem), if anything.  Here's why I believe
this to be so:

Anyone that has registered a .biz domain name has been forewarned that "the
new top-level domains require that either you or your ISP have UPGRADED from
the functionally obsolete ICANN Legacy Namespace to the ORSC INCLUSIVE
NAMESPACE in order for you and your visitors to see the domains you are
about to register!". (http://www.pacificroot.com/register.shtml)

Of course, I would suggest that the use of the term "UPGRADED" in the quote
above is rather misleading to the consumer (FTC anyone?), but putting that
aside for the moment, it seems to me that all the alternative roots have to
do is merely convince all the ISPs, etc. to point to their root.  And, if
all the ISPs, etc. want to do that, fine.  If half want to point to ICANN's
root and the other half want to point to an alternative root, fine again.  I
see this as a marketing problem for the alternative roots, not a technical
one for the entire Internet.  And, unless someone can convince me that there
is indeed a technical problem here, I believe the term "collision" is
inappropriate in this context.  It conjures up images of failed
transmissions, data packets colliding, etc., none of which seem to be at
stake here.

As for creating problems for the ISP and keeping track of two different .biz
names they might be hosting, well, tough...the ISPs are just going to have
to pick a horse to ride.  Do they want to ride the one that currently has
the most viewers or do they want to ride the new kid on the block with
potential but less viewers.  IMHO, it's a business decision for the ISPs,
etc., plain and simple.  It might even be likened to the VHS/Betamax dilemma
for VCR manufacturers, tape manufacturers, etc. a couple decades ago.  Did
they want to ride the less used but supposedly more technically advanced
Betamax horse or did they want to ride the more popular but less technically
advanced VHS horse. (Note: My comment on whether VHS or Betamax was more
technically advanced should not be construed as a comment on the technical
capabilities of either the ICANN root or the alternative roots.)

Anyway, my suggestion to the alternative roots is to think and do marketing,
marketing, marketing.  And if they don't get busy real soon, somebody new
with deep marketing pockets just might show up right around the corner,
steal all the thunder, and create a third .biz.  Oops, too late!  They
already did!  New.Net, anyone?  (Okay, okay...so new.net isn't offering
.biz...yet!  Sorry to scare some of you out there.  But there is not a thing
in the world preventing them from doing so if they wanted to.)

Anyway, I think I proved my point...I have way too much time on my hands
these days.  Phew!

Regards,

Jeff
--
jeff field
925-283-4083
jfield@aaaq.com

> Even though it is quite possible to have the same TLD in different
> roots, there will be a nightmare for hosting companies who will have
> no idea which is which, whether they already have a zone set up
> for an identical domain name...
>
> It also fragments the net irrevocably because you will then HAVE
> TO choose one root over another and keep switching to see each
> version of .BIZ.  Now it doesn't matter which root you point to.
> They all carry the USG root TLDs as well as their additional non-
> colliding TLDs.  If DoC enters a dupe, then there is no way to do
> this any more.  Roots will then have to choose which .BIZ to carry.
> The name space is fractured, period.
>
> In addition, how will it be determined who's domain name is the
> legitimate one?  (hint:  both).  So how do businesses market their
> sites/names?  Will the roots always carry the same version of the
> TLD?
>
> DoC will introduce not only a collider, but will be instrumental in
> wreaking havoc on the ISP industry as well as the TLD industry - all
> because ICANN has decided these TLDs don't matter and the only
> root is the DoC root.  The precedent is set.  The US government
> can just take your business product if it chooses to not
> acknowledge you.  Great.  This is maintaining the stability of the
> net?
>
> Leah
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > > jp@ADNS.NET
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:00 PM
> > > To: ga@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituenc>
> > > .BIZ belongs to Leah Gallagos and AtlanticRoot - Reassignment by DoC
> > > is a violation of the APA and a violation of the 5th Amendment
> > > Takings Clause.
> >
> > While we're on this topic, can anyone define what seems to be the
> > popular term "collision" when referring to .biz and the presence of
> > two .biz's on the Internet?  Is there a technical collision that will
> > actually occur if we have two .biz's?  Or can both reside, each listed
> > in different roots, without affecting the other?  If that's the case,
> > then it seems to me that what we have here is more a marketing
> > collision than a technical one. Anyone?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jeff
> > --
> > jeff field
> > 925-283-4083
> > jfield@aaaq.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html