ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf


Yes, and it workes only becasue ICANN has got a market lock on the only
registries in town.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 9:09 PM
> To: jandl@jandl.com
> Cc: Jefsey Morfin; icann-board@icann.org; Kent Crispin; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf
> 
> 
> So is this a case of "reverse TLD hijacking?" Instead of  mom 
> and pop having
> a domain name on which to post their grandchildren's 
> refrigerator art, but which
> name has commercial signicance so BIG BAD CORPORATION starts up the
> UDRP or whatever, we have a TLD that after all these years 
> likewise turns out
> to have commercial significance, so ICANN sets out to 
> duplicate it through its
> own procedural clout?
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > On 8 May 2001, at 13:26, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Jefsey, I'm sure you didn't realize it, but you have made 
> the strongest
> > > case I have seen so far for my proposal that there should be legal
> > > sanctions against the connection of alternate root system 
> to the global
> > > Internet.  And of course, I don't speak for Dr Cerf in 
> this matter.  But
> > > you have posted these comments far and wide, and indicate 
> yourself that you
> > > expect public response.
> > >
> > > Comments below:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:56:26PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > > > Dear Mr. Chairman,
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > I have two questions. The first one is strategic to the 
> Internet and the
> > > > second is technical and legal. Both of them concern the 
> decision of
> > > > introducing a "bis.biz" TLD colliding with the existing 
> ".biz" TLD.
> > > >
> > > > 1. the strategic question is the following.
> > > >
> > > > You cannot ignore that the possible support by the 
> iCANN of a second .biz
> > > > is opposed and is not therefore based upon consensus. 
> This means that the
> > > > iCANN is here going beyond its Charter which is to 
> manage the Consensus.
> > > > Some may argue that iCANN opponents are not 
> representative and give fuel
> > > > to an interesting theory of Consensus by exclusion. 
> Others will respond -
> > > > and I suppose you are among them - that bylaws give the 
> iCANN the right
> > > > to act without consensus should the motive or the 
> urgency be good enough.
> > >
> > > Both are clearly true.
> > >
> > > > In all the ".biz" controversy we have heard many con 
> and pros. There is
> > > > however a pro we never heard until now and that we are 
> eager to hear from
> > > > you: what is that so important to the Internet about 
> the ".biz" TLD? And
> > > > what made you vote to take it away from Leah Gallagos?
> > >
> > > Nothing is being taken away from her.  She chose to use 
> an alternate
> > > root system that was very unwisely connected to the 
> global internet, and
> > > she can continue to do so.  However, her actions were 
> irresponsible in that
> > > they ignored a very large scale process that has been 
> going on for years,
> > > and she must take the consequences.
> >
> > Kent, that is about the most ridiculous statement I've read 
> in a long
> > time.  .BIZ has been on the public net since 1995.  Others have been
> > there many years more (1985). I didn't introduce it and you 
> know it.  I
> > got the delegation after it had been around for years.  If 
> ICANN had not
> > endeavored to duplicate it, there would be no problem.  If and when
> > ICANN dupliates others, it will be just as bad. Talk about 
> irresponsible
> > behavior!
> >
> > >
> > > > 2. The second question is both technical and legal. I 
> will handle it
> > > > through a case study.
> > > >
> > > >      Background
> > > >
> > > > DNS timers, machine failures, mail service overloads, 
> etc. do not permit
> > > > to know which machine  an e-mail will travel through. 
> The iCANN excludes
> > > > the augmented roots from its own root. The augmented 
> roots include the
> > > > whole inclusive name space, i.e. every non colliding 
> TLD including
> > > > iCANN's TLDs. It is not possible to foresee the root 
> used by every
> > > > machine on an e-mail path.
> > > >
> > > > In case of collision (the same TLD being used on 
> different roots) this
> > > > means that a mail bound to a given host under one root, 
> may land on
> > > > another host under another root.
> > > >
> > > > This is different from an error or of the hacking of 
> the mail service.
> > > > Here the mail service works perfectly: the final error 
> is the result of
> > > > the network misconfiguration which is the TLD collision.
> > > >
> > > >      Description of the case (the use of IBM name is 
> just for better
> > > > understanding)
> > > >
> > > > 1) let suppose my name is Ian B. Martinez and I own 
> ibm.biz on existing
> > > > ".biz" service. 2) let suppose the DoC authorizes the 
> iCANN to proceed
> > > > with your own ".biz" TLD, named here after "bis.biz" for better
> > > > understanding.
> > > >
> > > >      Questions:
> > > >
> > > > 3) I send a mail to accounting@ibm.biz. Can you certify 
> that that mail
> > > > will always reach my own "accounting" mailbox on my own 
> ibm.biz host (and
> > > > not one under "bis.biz")?
> > > >
> > > > 4) the IBM Tax Advisor sends a mail to the IBM, Accounting VP at
> > > > accounting@ibm.biz (i.e. bis.biz). Can you certify that 
> his mail will
> > > > never reach my own ibm.biz host?
> > > >
> > > > 5) can you certify the iCANN and the DoC are not 
> legally responsible for
> > > > a possible wrong delivery while they decided to create this
> > > > misconfiguration?
> > >
> > > The misconfiguration is in creation of a .biz in an alternate root
> > > system, and connecting that to the global Internet -- an 
> action which
> > > exposes one to all kinds of problems, not just the one 
> you outline.
> > >
> > > > 6) I assume that I am the legitimate owner of the data 
> I receive in my
> > > > mailbox and I may freely disclose it to the press (BTW 
> could be sent to
> > > > me on purpose). Can you certify that the iCANN and the 
> DoC will not be
> > > > held responsible for the harm which might result to IBM?
> > >
> > > Actually, the entity that needs to worry about being held 
> responsible is
> > > the party who created an alternate TLD and advertised it.
> > >
> > > > 7) if a mail of mine was received by another party and 
> disclosed due to
> > > > the collision iCANN would have advised to the DoC, who 
> would you advise
> > > > me to sue?
> > >
> > > The operator of the .biz that is operating in an 
> alternate root.  Such
> > > operation is in direct contradiction to the best 
> technical advice available
> > > (RFC 2826), and it is clearly irresponsible to operate in 
> contradiction to
> > > such authoritative advice.  I am not a lawyer, but in a 
> US court, at least,
> > > willfully ignoring such important and widely known 
> information would be
> > > extremely damaging -- worse than mere negligence.
> >
> > The negligence is on the part of ICANN since they were aware of the
> > existence of .BIZ and were fully aware of the consequences of
> > duplicating it.  As usual, you are reversing the situation. 
>  It's rather like
> > the cheater accusing the spouse of cheating to cover his own
> > misbehavior.  Happens all the time.  .BIZ pre-existed ICANN's dupe.
> > Simple.
> >
> > Once more, Kent. The DNS is singular.  Roots are not.  Roots are not
> > the name space.  DNS is.  Most of the kids in school can think that
> > through.
> >
> > >
> > > If I were Ms Gellagos, I would be thinking very hard about this.
> >
> > Careful, Kent.  And my name is spelled Gallegos, thank you.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and 
> you will be
> > > kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- 
> Mark Twain
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 
> --
> 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
> 
--
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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>