RE: [council] Agenda items.... Alternate Roots and Stuart...

["Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>]

I second Peter's proposal.

Tony Harris
----- Mensaje original -----
De: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
Para: <council@dnso.org>; <nc-intake@dnso.org>
CC: "'Milton Mueller'" <Mueller@syr.edu>; <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>
Enviado: Jueves 19 de Abril de 2001 20:43
Asunto: RE: [council] Agenda items.... Alternate Roots and Stuart...


> To all-
>
> I reacted prematurely, and without confirmation of Stuart's words.
>
> The source is heresay, and not verified by confirmation from other
sources,
> and Stuart himself indicates he did not say it.
>
> My apologies to Stuart for the hasty mis-quote.
>
> Nevertheless- I feel the NC should begin discussion on the subject of
> alternate roots, especially the new.net well-financed contractual deals,
> their potential impact on the stability of the Internet, and the NC advice
> to the Board.
>
> Let us not ignore this like the Ostrich.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:19 AM
> To: council@dnso.org; nc-intake@dnso.org; Paul.Kane@reacto.com;
> pdeblanc@usvi.net
> Subject: RE: [council] Agenda items....
>
>
> Peter:
> Thank you for introducing that issue.
> If Mr. Lynn is really saying that to DoC, I think we should strongly
> discourage him from doing so.
>
> The DNS protocol assumes a unique root, but it does not specify which
root.
> The decision where to point a name server or client is (and in a free
> society, must be) an entirely voluntary decision.
>
> Thus, when Stuart Lynn or the IAB or anyone else runs to a governmental
> authority and claims that the existence of another root is
"destabilizing,"
> I have two concerns:
>
> 1. Is he angling for legislation or regulations banning alternative
efforts?
> I hope not. The Web would be more "stable" and less confusing if Netscape
> and Microsoft didn't produce alternate browsers. The world would be more
> stable and more compatible if we all spoke the same language. But do we
> really want to stifle change and diversity?
>
> 2. Lynn begs the question as to who is obligated to coordinate with whom.
To
> the Pacific Root and other smaller efforts supporting TLDs that predate
> ICANN, ICANN is the encroacher. To ICANN, Pacific Root and other alts are
> the encroachers. Obviously, ICANN is now the dominant root and the others
> are small. But the roles could easily be reversed in a short time.
>
> One of the issues we need to be aware of in this discussion is antitrust
> liability (that archaic word is what we use in the US - the rest of you
> refer more sensibly to "competition policy"). That is, whatever policy we
> adopt must not be designed to prop up a monopoly in root server operation
> and domain name registration services.
>
> We also need to be aware of the international and multilingual
implications
> of the alternate root debate. Many countries which want to develop their
own
> path of Internet development may choose something very similar to what we
> now call "alternate roots."
>
> >>> "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> 04/19/01 02:01AM >>>
> I'd suggest the introduction of discussion on alternate roots.
>
> Stuart Lynn has presented to the US DOC the idea that alternate roots
> _could_ undermine the stability of the Internet. Specifically, collisions
in
> namespace (i assume he means "A" root and "alternate roots") could cause
> users to surf to web pages they were not expecting, etc...
>
> Stuart suggests ICANN have contracts with ISPs- but he doesn't say what
the
> "quid pro quo" would be.
>
> Since he has brought this up, we should open the topic.
>
> New.Net HAS contracts with ISPs, with financial incentives, to place their
> 20 new TLDs in the nameservers of those (large) ISPs, such as Earthlink.
> They are well funded, and will continue to aggressively market their
deals.
>
> In fact, I attended a recent ISP conference in Baltimore, and New.Net had
a
> substantial presence in the trade show.
>
> While this is a difficult and sensitive issue, eventually we (the NC) will
> be expected to advise the Board on Policy and on our official position.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> P.S. I have no report on this, I am just suggesting we pay attention.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Paul M. Kane
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:04 AM
> To: NC Intake; names council
> Subject: [council] Agenda items....
>
>
> The intake Committee is considering the Agenda for the next meeting May
> 9th. Are there any items that you would like addressed/included?
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
> Chair - Intake Committee
>
>