RE: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 10:39 AM

> HOWEVER, the alternative roots (no flames please, I'm not interested
> in the "politically correct" names for these) have an extremely
> small customer base, and can basically be ignored for any practical
> purposes.  Now, that means that the USG de facto has the control
> over the DNS name space.  From this fact, Michael concludes that the
> USG has a duty to apply due process for its handling of this public
> ressource - instead of creating a "private" de-facto monopoly on the
> root zone market, which shows precisely the kind of behaviour you'd
> expect from a monopoly.

I reiterate the argument that we are not discussing resources here. However,
I do agree that we need a taxonomy that makes sense.

names := abstract concept
zone server := resource

The biggest problem, over the years, is the confusion of the subjects and
the contextual referents of the objects. Clarity is not served.

> (Of course, the actual question to be answered is how this monopoly
> can be fixed or brought under control.  Would competition help?  Or
> couldn't it persist on that market?  What kind of control mechanisms
> should be established so the single player in that market is forced
> to take into account public interest?)

Therein lays a very interesting discussion. But, we've had the monopoly warz
as well. They were also inconclusive, mainly due to this same lack of
clarity.
--
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