Re: [ga] CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS REJECT ICANN'S ONE ROOT 'POLICY'

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear unknown JINTLAW,
the word "alternate root" is quite confusing and the way you use it too, 
since your second paragraph uses the words in lieu of TLD. This remark is 
necessary since the "Indeed Confusing Position-3" is to fight non existing 
"alternate root" divagations by Kent Crispin.

What really exists is ruled by RFC 920. This RFC stipulates there are three 
different classes of TLD all of them being of identical essence.

- The initial TLDs - which have been since extended by .org and .arpanet, 
and now by the colliding .biz, .info, the Anglo-Saxon .name and .pro.
- The ccTLD named after the 2 letter ISO list.
- The moTLD (multiorganization) when expected 500 organizations or more 
want to share their own TLD, through a consortium, an alliance, etc.. An 
example is given: ".csnet".

As per the RFC 920 I formed and incorporated the ".sys" consortium, 
documented the project on the ICANN site before Yokohama and contacted Mike 
Roberts, then President of the ICANN (the bylaws of the ICANN leading to 
think it could be the NIC described in the RFC 920).

The response from Mike Roberts shown the ICANN was not the NIC and created 
the current "open routes". He responded that "if I was prepared to enter 
the International TLD Business" I was to pay $50.000 to his lottery and be 
prepared to spend much more afterwards. This was quite new and not 
conforming to Jon Postel's RFC 920 - what shows the "permanent" ICP-3 
"current" position does not reflect any immemorial policy.

My intend was only for an expected group a more than 500 organizations to 
share a three letter string requesting less than 100 characters to be 
entered into an ASCII file. What our colleagues from .linux priced to $20 
($10 to open the envelope, $10 to enter the  data).

Root and TLD Best Practices used by our root projects are strictly in 
conformance with the RFC 1591, the RFC 920, the IANA practices and the 
ccTLD discussed BP. There are based upon the fact that the DNS is 
recursive: the SLD are chosen by the SLD Registrants, hence the TLD by the 
TLD Manager, and the roots by the Root Administrators (and the public).

The main effort by everyone concerned is to avoid the conflicts of TLD 
Managers over the same strings. The Root and TLD Best Practices provide 
criteria to that end and leave the problem resolution mostly to the TLD 
Managers themselves as per RFC 1591. Practical observation shows that the 
things are not black and white, but that common sense prevails (who would 
invest in a collider and use lawyers in a start-up, except ICANN?).

As soon as the ICANN fulfill its mission as far as moTLD are concerned the 
so called "alternative roots" will disappear.

But the target of the ICANN seems different.

1. they create a few powerful competitive allies : NSI, Register, 
NeuLevel... in organizing the scarcity of TLDs. (Would there be any rush on 
.info and .biz would there already be thousands of sex.tld?)

2. they want them - as "global" TLD - to develop all over the world, with 
local physical presence. Until then strangled ccTLD contracts with them - 
and maybe get their machines in the US soil as requested by some cyber-war 
specialists.

3. and try to "stabilize" the InterNet under an enhanced UDRP to better 
protect famous TMs.

A part from the anti-trust case it will lead to with the general delay for 
the network development it may represent, this businocractic policy is by 
itself is a major risk of the Internet blowing up.


The solution to this is to forget Joe Sims and let come back to Jon Postel. 
To help ccTLD federating and animating the local Internet communities and 
aggregating as the ICANN Members, unlocking the Internet and the root. Then 
to leave the market and the people living their life the way they want. 
Soon every Registrar will manage a few TLDs and continue selling SLD from 
others TLD - not as resellers but as partners suppressing many of the today 
problems - insuring both diversity, stability and competition.

ICANN is very much like someone wanting to control the worldwide TV system 
to make sure that no TM rights of a few large corporations is misused. Let 
be serious. Only Kent Krispin and Stuart Lynn think that State owned 
ad-free TV stations would endanger the stability of the TV technology ....

Jefsey












On 12:48 10/08/01, JINTLAW@aol.com said:
>I don't interpret it that way at all.
>
>To me (and I stress this is a personal opinion) it means that those who 
>operate on the alternate root should not be prevented from applying to be 
>in the authoritative root.
>
>Put yet even another way, in the event that an alternate root would like 
>to become part of the authoritative root and live by all of the rules that 
>the authoritative root TLDs live by, it should not be prevented from doing 
>so (i.e., subject to consensus policies, SLAs, Sanctions, Escrow, 
>mandatory financial commitments, UDRP, etc.).
>
>It is NOT an endorsement by Congress of the alternate roots, nor is it any 
>enorsement that ICANN should avoid collisions and be constrained the 
>alternate roots that are already operated.
>
>Thus, it is my personal opinion that ICP-3 and the Congressional statement 
>do not contradict each other.
>--
>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