Re: [ga] RE: Re[2]: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to respo nse to response)

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Jefsey,

Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 3:43:42 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> IANAG Roeland, so I miss something in your reasoning. what the US 
> constitution has to do with the root?
> Jefsey

It has nothing to do with it. The sections Roeland pointed to do not
in fact prevent such a law from being passed, nor would they make such
a law unconstitutional.

Not that I agree with the principle that such a law should be passed,
far from it.

But we need to use valid arguments to support that position, not ones
that are not based in facts.



> On 23:10 29/05/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>>A few points;
>>
>>Extracted from below;
>>
>> > > If a law was passed making alternative roots illegal (Something I'm
>> > > not saying I agree with) it would be understood that current root and
>> > > the contractors who are trusted with operating it, would receive
>> > > exemption from antitrust and other relevant laws.
>>
>>See my first paragraph descibing the dilemma that ICANN/USG finds themselves
>>in.
>>
>> > > Your statement "AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT" is not
>> > > actually true.  There are no constitutional issues necessarily that
>> > > would be prevent it.
>>
>>The US Constitution makes specific provisions for some activity and
>>specifically prohibits others, including the catch-all;
>>--
>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
>>http://tcnbp.tripod.com/index.htm
>>
>>Amendment IX
>>
>>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>>
>>Amendment X
>>
>>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
>>prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
>>to the people.
>>--
>>
>>Also, considering that a root zone server is simply a publishing mechanism,
>>there are, like it as not, First Amendment issues. I leave it to the lawyers
>>to work out the details.
>>
>> From my reading of those texts, making root zone services an exclusive right
>>of the USG would require a new Constitutional Amendment. There is a lot of
>>reasoning behind this, for which, lawyers are best equiped to argue.
>>
>>It is also worthy to note that none of the Federal Services contractors
>>(USPS, IRS, etc.) have any exclusive rights. Notably, the USPS has to
>>compete with FedEx and UPS, among others. Even at the height of Ma Bell
>>(AT&T) monopoly, there were no laws passed that stated that one could not,
>>or was prohibited from, stringing up your own copper and going into the
>>telephone business (Something MCI, in fact, did). Only the monopoly was
>>regulated, not the industry.
>>
>>The clamour for such regulation, from Kent Crispin and company, would make
>>the USG bend our Constitution near to the breaking point.
>>
>>--
>>IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
>>encouraged to seek legal advice.
>>--
>>ROELAND M.J. MEYER
>>Managing Director
>>Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
>>TEL: +001 925 373 3954
>>FAX: +001 925 373 9781
>>http://www.mhsc.com
>>mailto: rmeyer@mhsc.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > From: NameCritic [mailto:watch-dog@inreach.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:11 AM
>> >
>> > He is correct. No law can be passed against it that would stand up
>> > Internationally. The US cannot dictate what other countries do. If an
>> > alternate root was located in France or some other country
>> > then the law
>> > would have no effect whatsoever. I would really like to see
>> > people quit
>> > treating this as if the US is the only concern here. The Internet is
>> > INTERNATIONAL. International Network. Got it now? A US law can only be
>> > effective in the US. Alternate roots can be located anywhere.
>> > There are even
>> > a lot of countries that would welcome it and the last time I
>> > checked they
>> > don't abide by US Law.
>> >
>> > What would ICANN do then? Have all the users who surf the
>> > alternate roots
>> > arrested? I wouldn't put it past them, due to their arrogant
>> > attitude that
>> > one government contract somehow empowered them to make the
>> > rules the world
>> > will all now live by. The ICANN BoD needs a reality check.
>> > They aren't that
>> > big or that powerful.
>> >
>> > There will always be other root systems get used to it, deal
>> > with it, and
>> > get over the ego rush ICANN.
>> >
>> >
>> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:17 AM
>> >
>> > > Hello Roeland,
>> > >
>> > > One thing you missed.
>> > >
>> > > If a law was passed making alternative roots illegal (Something I'm
>> > > not saying I agree with) it would be understood that
>> > current root and
>> > > the contractors who are trusted with operating it, would receive
>> > > exemption from antitrust and other relevant laws.
>> > >
>> > > Your statement "AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT" is not
>> > > actually true.  There are no constitutional issues necessarily that
>> > > would be prevent it.
>> > >
>> > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 1:53:51 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The problem Harald, is that the ICANN doesn't have the
>> > authority to make
>> > > > that stick and it cannot be given such authority, in the
>> > US, without
>> > > > violating some fundimental civil rights (laws). Neither
>> > can the USG
>> > accede,
>> > > > to ICANN, such power. They are prohibited by the US
>> > Constitution. ICANN
>> > *is*
>> > > > a California corporation and the USG *does* control the
>> > root, currently.
>> > The
>> > > > only way out of that dilemma is for ICANN to start a root
>> > registry and
>> > > > publish their own inclusive root zone (something that I've been
>> > suggesting
>> > > > for a while now). But, that makes the ICANN no better
>> > than any other
>> > > > inclusive root registry. The only difference will be that
>> > the USG has
>> > > > already given it a healthy startup boost.
>> > >
>> > > > It *still* does not preclude the appearance of competitive root
>> > registries
>> > > > AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT. Regardless of
>> > what mr. Crispin
>> > would
>> > > > like, the US is still not a totalitarian regime. Even were it so,
>> > > > jurisdiction outside of the US cannot be compelled to
>> > recognise such a
>> > law.
>> > > > We do not yet, have a world government and are not likely
>> > to have one in
>> > our
>> > > > lifetimes.
>> > >
>> > > > Given that incontrovertible condition, multiple root zones are
>> > inevitable if
>> > > > market forces present an attractive opportunity for them
>> > to exist. In
>> > this
>> > > > case, the only strategy that makes sense is for ICANN to
>> > present such an
>> > > > attractive value-proposition that the market is satisfied
>> > with their
>> > > > offering and won't support other root zones.
>> > >
>> > > > In short, it becomes a monopoly. Well, in the US, there's
>> > a problem with
>> > > > that too. It's called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, among
>> > others. This
>> > means
>> > > > that there will be at least two more root registries.
>> > There's more,
>> > history
>> > > > has shown that any market will have at least 3-5% of it's
>> > members using
>> > > > whatever competitor is available, simply to be
>> > cantankerous, if noting
>> > else.
>> > > > What this means is that any monopolist can never gain
>> > more than 95% of a
>> > > > given market. This may be sufficient for most historical
>> > monopolies, but
>> > it
>> > > > means that multiple roots are a god given certainty. Whom
>> > else do you
>> > think
>> > > > has that last 5% ... frosty the snowman? No sir, it's
>> > competitive root
>> > > > registries and 5% of 5M names, times $6 bucks a whack, is still a
>> > sizable
>> > > > chunk of change and Moore's law has dropped operations
>> > cost down to
>> > almost
>> > > > zip ($0).
>> > >
>> > > > Business drives technology ... always has and always
>> > will. It is not the
>> > > > place of the technologist to tell the market what it can
>> > do. The market
>> > will
>> > > > flatly reject that. If the technologist doesn't/can't
>> > deliver then the
>> > > > market will find another technologist that can/will. Kent
>> > Crispin's
>> > paper is
>> > > > nothing more than a technologist's excuse for not getting
>> > the job done.
>> > If
>> > > > the ICANN is stupid enough to accept it as gospel then it
>> > is finished.
>> > It's
>> > > > unenforcible, unimplementable, and just plain dumb. To
>> > make matters
>> > worse,
>> > > > he does not present a single problem that does not already have an
>> > > > implemented solution. In short, it's almost pure FUD.
>> > >
>> > > > Thank you. I'm sorry about going on so long.
>> > >
>> > > >> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
>> > > >> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:55 PM
>> > > >>
>> > > >> At 00:40 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>> > > >> >Smart service providers won't offer highly
>> > > >> >conflicted names, most consumers won't buy them,
>> > > >> >and ISPs won't support them. They will converge, or
>> > > >> >die. Domain names have no value otherwise. You
>> > > >> >can't play with them, or hang them on your wall.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will
>> > > >> eventually occur.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do
>> > > >> not want to
>> > > >> admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point
>> > > >> where one name
>> > > >> has only one resolution in any DNS service.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> ICANN has proposed one way: strict regulation of entries into
>> > > >> a single
>> > > >> root, no conflicts allowed.
>> > > >> Name.space, ORSC and others have proposed another way: first
>> > > >> come first
>> > > >> served, talk until tired whenever conflicts occur.
>> > > >> New.net has proposed a third way: sell what you want, and
>> > > >> hope to get so
>> > > >> many customers that the others won't dare challenge you.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I personally think that ICANN's way is fairer and less
>> > > >> painful than the
>> > > >> other current proposals; I may be in a minority on that.
>>--
>>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@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



-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:william@userfriendly.com
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net


--
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