[ga] Re: [ga-roots] Briefing Paper
- To: General Assembly of the DNSO <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Briefing Paper
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 03:59:08 -0700
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <NDBBJHDDILJHEHGGGCCECEFJCLAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <001701c0e586$1268a480$80138ed1@q0q2h5>
- Sender: email@example.com
Chris and all,
You make some good points here Chris that bare consideration IMHO.
(More detailed response comments below NameCritics)
> Ok, you are all used to some strange ideas presented by me so this should
> not be a shocker. Just a thought for others to maybe build an idea out of.
Well a strange idea is better than no idea at all! >;) So, keep them
> When the government builds a highway they secure the right of way from land
> owners to do so. The land owner is paid and there are rules to decide how
> that figure is arrived at.
Yes, but sometimes the gov just declares the Right of Eminent domain,
pun intended... >;) This seems to be the prevailing attitude the
BoD has decidedly taken.
> Is there a possible model here for something ICANN could do when creating a
> new gTLD that is the same as an existing one in another root to secure the
> right of way per say?
Possibly. However it would be much better and more reasonable to
recognize that other Root structures or competitive Registries outside
of ICANN's control, exist. If First come first serve had been
honored as it has been in the Internet industry, in this area, there
have not been the potential problem of potential colliders. It was
from the ICANN meeting in MDR that the Board know other Registries
and root structures existed and were growing, all be it at that time a
growth. Yet decidedly selected two gTLD's that were identical to
tow others that were already in operation, .BIZ and .INFO.
The ICANN BoD's decision in MDR in selecting .BIZ and .INFO,
and Vint Cerf in particular recognizing specifically that .WEB had a
history of registrations already, seems to show fairly clearly that
they consider other registries or root structures illegitimate to their
seemingly predetermined desired direction for the Legacy Root
structure. Hence, I can only reasonable conclude the either the
ICANN BoD changes it's policy direction, or the DNS will
be fragmented at their insistence...
> Some compensation to the tld owner for not allowing
> the colliders to exist but giving ICANN the authority to select tlds they
> deem viable?
This can be handled programmatically now through various means
which have been discussed in fairly great detail. For instance,
SROOTS/BINDPlus, and Multi-Root for instance...
> Don't go off on me here. I believe that the roots should be all inclusive
> still, however there could be alternatives that are being overlooked and
> this may lead to one of them. To just introduce the new tlds with NO
> consideration to previous tld operators seems the wrong approach, and it
> doesn't seem they are going to recognize the need to include other roots at
> this time, why not a compromise where say Leah receives a set amount plus
> royalties for ICANN obtaining the right of way.
I doubt that the ICANN BoD is either in a position to pay tribute
or would/should be willing to do so. However recognizing that a
technical solution is already available, would be a reasonable method
of accomplishing this goal.
> IMHO the $50,000 ICANN charged for the application fee is a reasonable
> amount for the right of way plus the operator of the new tld paying a
> royalty per domain name filed.
> Now if that means tlds that have been in operation for a certain amount of
> time or grandfathering in ones that exist to date for this compromise I'll
> leave to you techies to work on.
Already been done. But the ICANN BoD is not excepting unless
the IETF sanctions these potential solutions (See methods in my above
> But keep in mind if you shoot for the whole ball of wax you aren't likely to
> get it and if ICANN refuses to do anything at all about this then it will
> cause them problems. A compromise has the chance of being implemented.
Yes there are some, if not several possibilities, but the ICANN BoD
has thus far refused to give them consideration.
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "babybows.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 5:04 PM
> Subject: [ga-roots] Briefing Paper
> > Not having noticed anyone else yet responding to the Names Council request
> > for a "Briefing Paper", I have myself prepared such a paper which may be
> > read at the following URL: http://www.babybows.com/briefing.htm
> > I would appreciate it if the experts in this group can point me to any
> > errors before the document is formally submitted.
> > Best regards,
> > Danny Younger
> > GA Chair
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> > Send mail to email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html