[ga] The failure of ICANN thus far...
All assembly members and stakeholders,
I have changed the Subject line of this post from the
GA-ICANN list to better discribe and coenside with the
subject matter in the body of this exchange...
============Copied from the GA-ICANN ML starts here ============
Darryl and all,
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: email@example.com On Behalf Of William S. Lovell
> |> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 6:03 PM
> |> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> |> Cc: ga - icann
> |> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] was: Re: [ga-icann] interesting California
> |> law to consider
> |> The fundamental problem here seems to be the aura that is given
> |> to the term "legacy," as though that meant writ by the hand of God
> |> on stone tablets held by Moses (at least among Christians). That's
> |> merely what turned out to be a historic opener, and holds no sacred
> |> position whatever. (ICANN, of course, would have it be sacred.)
> |> (On the substance, copying is copying, whether done by ICANN or
> |> "Mom and Pop." ICANN is after .biz, which happens already to
> |> be taken.)
> If we were to look at it in that way, "." was developed with the legacy
> root and it has been copied by the alt.roots.
I think you mean "Competitive and Inclusive" Root structures and
> The thing is, anyone can set up an alt.root and there are no > restrictions on what TLD's they operate under it.
True there are no technical restrictions with respect to additional
TLD's that is actually known. However thus far, none of the
"Competitive and Inclusive" Root structures and registries
has duplicated any existing working TLD's to my knowledge.
Yet the ICANN BoD has edicted two such TLD's, .BIZ and .INFO...
> The whole point of this argument is
> the fact the alt.root community wants to muscle in on the users of the
> legacy root.
The "Competitive and Inclusive" Root structures and registries are in
no way trying to "muscle in on the users" as you put it, but rather
meeting a demand or perceived demand that there are stakeholders/users
that want choices and they want them now. Ao you mischaracterisation
here is unwarranted and inflammatory in the extreme. Please discontinue
such behavior as it is unseemly and grossly inaccurate. "Competitive
and Inclusive" Root structures have been around for 5+ years now,
which is long before ICANN even existed...
> In other words they are attempting to profit by the client
> base the legacy root has without putting in the hard yards to gain that
> client base.
Demand is so high for new TLD's and name space registries that
the rush on almost any easily usable registry system that does just
a modicum of advertising, gains a fairly significant stakeholder
base. New.net amongst others have shown this clearly, as have
some ccTLD's that have been re-introduced in the past year or so.
The DNS and the Internet has evolved to the point where demand
is now quickly and easily outstripping supply.
> ICANN may have inherited it by default and didn't earn it as
> such but they are the ones with it and are working to make it suitable > for the users.
And thus far the ICANN BoD and staff have failed miserably in this
Yet organizations such as New.net, ORSC, UDNS, Ultranet, ect, ect, have
been working hard a furiously to meet the demand. It seems obvious
that now with more than 20m users/stakeholders/registrants that have
registered Domain Names in other than ICANN edicted TLD's shows this
> I see no reason why they should have to "give" anything away to
> anybody else to make a profit from.
It is not a "Give" type situation. The stakeholders want and demand
new TLD's that are not overly restricted and regulated. They will
get them from wherever or whomever will supply them in a manner
that is usable to them. If ICANN can and will do this in a consensus
based manner, than that's just fine with the stakeholders. If not, and
thus far the ICANN BoD and staff have not done so, than the
stakeholders/users/domain Name registrants will go else
where as we are seeing in droves....
This is the thus far failure of the ICANN BoD and staff to evaluate
the stakeholders/potential registrant market.
> The criteria for selecting which TLD's get released and who operates > them may be onerous to the majority of people.
Interesting hyperbole as Dave Crocker is so fond of saying here
> However, I suggest the best way
> to gain a market share is to actually participate and if necessary
> for change in the criteria, not attempting to circumvent it.
As Henry Ford once muttered, "Build a better mouse trap, and the world
will beat a path to your door". Such is as it is with "Competitive and
Inclusive" Root structures today...
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1920 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html