DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[ga] Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response toresponse)

  • To: General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@dnso.org>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response toresponse)
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
  • Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:39:11 -0700
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <>
  • Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 13:53 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >No, we don't quite have a point of agreement yet. It seems that IAB still
> >doesn't seem to grasp the fact that it is dealing with a standards
> >competition phenomenon, and that ICANN management is hysterical.
> Two non-facts in one sentence - ie I don't agree with you on either point.
> >Tell me: do you think the integration of wireless communication into a
> >single global standard will occur if the GSM proponents insist that
> >THEY are the "authoritative" standard and all other technologies
> >are "harmful" and will cause incompatibility (with them)?
> I certainly know that it is illegal to operate 900 MHz Wavelan cards in
> Europe, because it causes harmful interference with GSM phones; those bands
> have been set aside for GSM usage in Europe.

  Reference please...

> Similarly, it is illegal to operate 900/1800 MHz band GSM phones in the US,
> since it causes harmful interference with other usages for which those
> bands have been allocated.

  Those are frequency bands, not specific technologies.  Ergo, your
is not only not comparable to what Milton said, it isn't even relative
to his
argument, Harald.

> But I guess that you did not want to make the point that legal action is
> not only justified, but common, where harmful interference can be demonstrated.

  COmpeting technologies are not harmful if they provide a clear choice.
Yo have failed in your rebuttal, Harald to demonstrate that using
example.  A frequency band is not a technology in and of itself. 
or SROOTS is.  Erco again, your argument is not relevant, and therefore
specifically invalid.

> >They would be correct, of course, that the existence of alternate
> >technologies will create interoperability problems. But no one is in a
> >position to eliminate competing technologies nor should they be.
> >How productive would it be to insist that no issues of policy or coordination
> >need to be considered?
> >
> >On the Names Council, Peter de Blanc and I have tried to initiate a
> >calm, deliberate, rational exploration of the problem of multiple roots.
> Which seems like a good thing, until we start disagreeing on the starting
> points.

  Please try to be specific on what "Starting Points" of which you
refer, Harald.  Unless or until you can demonstrate that, you have not
substative argument.  Only FUD.

> >We simply wanted to start by recognising facts: New.net exists,
> ok, we agree on that.
> >there was a conflcit over .biz,
> to put it another way: Leah Gallegos is upset that .biz got allocated in
> the ICANN process that she chose not to participate in. Whether that
> constitutes a conflict or not is in the eye of the beholder.

  You mean the "Lottery" process?  Well I it wasn't a very good process,
and rigged from the get go.  It also was not a process that was fair to
any and all interested parties as required in the White Paper.  Why
pony up $50k non-refundable on a maybe regardless of whether your
proposal is a good one or not?  That's not good business or good policy.
So it comes a no surprise that Leah did not choose to participate in
a rigged game that was already pretty much predicted as to whom would
a nod from the ICANN BoD on a Registry contract opportunity!

> >  there are problems with the
> >implementation of internationalized domain names that is leading
> >to separate roots.
> No problem has yet been identified where it is clear that separate roots is
> the solution. See the message from CNNIC I forwarded earlier.
> >  Our initial phase was consciously constructed to avoid
> >statements of hard policy positions and to encourage education and
> >understanding of the ramifications of the issue.
> >
> >The reaction we have got? ICANN and IAB jumping up and down and screaming
> >"I am the authoritative standard by DEFINITION!" "The policy
> >is already set! There is nothing to discuss!" "Whoever raises this issue is
> >hostile to the stability of the Internet!" Stuart Lynn, who doesn't seem
> >to have understood a thing I've written, has publicly written that I am "an
> >enthusiastic proponent of abandoning a single root."
> Well, aren't you? (only half kidding)
> You certainly don't seem to be a proponent of defending it.
> >Clearly, the DNSO cannot take the first tiny steps toward policy
> >discussion without ICANN management deciding that it already
> >knows that the right policy is and ramming it down everyone's throats,
> >and it seems to have the active support of the IAB in this. If you
> >want points of agreement, work with your IAB colleagues to fix this.
> The DNSO, through this forum and others, has been running a discussion for
> a long time. However, neither side seems to be able to convince the other
> about even the most basic facts.
> Returning to my original posting:
> > >>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> 05/29/01 02:55AM >>>
> > >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.
> Do you disagree with my characterization of your opinion?
> --
> 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


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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
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 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 >>>