RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

["JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>]

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JandL [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:53 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org; jfield@aaaq.com
> > Cc: jp@ADNS.NET
> > Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency
> >
> >
> > There is a technical collision in the name space.
> 
> I respectfully disagree.  I can only conclude from your comments
> below that it is a marketing collision (or problem), if anything. 
> Here's why I believe this to be so:
> 
> Anyone that has registered a .biz domain name has been forewarned
> that "the new top-level domains require that either you or your ISP
> have UPGRADED from the functionally obsolete ICANN Legacy Namespace
> to the ORSC INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE in order for you and your visitors
> to see the domains you are about to register!".
> (http://www.pacificroot.com/register.shtml)
> 
> Of course, I would suggest that the use of the term "UPGRADED" in
> the quote above is rather misleading to the consumer (FTC anyone?), 

It is an upgrade.  The legacy root is old and lacking.  Too access all
the TLDs you do have to upgrade one way or another.  

but
> putting that aside for the moment, it seems to me that all the
> alternative roots have to do is merely convince all the ISPs, etc.
> to point to their root.  And, if all the ISPs, etc. want to do that,
> fine.  If half want to point to ICANN's root and the other half want
> to point to an alternative root, fine again.  

That's fine, as long as making that choice doesn't cause a problem. 
With a collider, it will.  Marketing the root in this context is not
the issue at all.  If it were the choice it is today, the marketing is
simply to add to what you get from the ICANN root.  Nothing wrong
there.  

I see this as a
> marketing problem for the alternative roots, not a technical one for
> the entire Internet.  And, unless someone can convince me that there
> is indeed a technical problem here, I believe the term "collision"
> is inappropriate in this context.  It conjures up images of failed
> transmissions, data packets colliding, etc., none of which seem to
> be at stake here.

What you have is a fractured internet where that choice must be 
made.  As I said, up to now, carrying the DoC root intact has been
standard.  With a duplicate TLD, it will now have to be a choice
between versions of the TLD and duplicate domain names throughout the
entire tree.  (however, if an ISP wanted to carry the PacificRoot and
still carry the ICANN duplicate of .BIZ, it is easy to do so.  They
just could not carry both).  The choice should not have to be made,
however, and that is the problem.  

Consider a half dozen .coms throughout the world.  Shoot, why not a
dozen?  He with the bucks for marketing causes the most confusion. 
Heck, why not?  ICANN is responsible for only the one root, right? 
And DoC has authority for only its versions of .com/net/org.  If they
can duplicate .BIZ, I guess anyone can duplicate .com - multiple
times.  Sheesh.

I agree, though, that there is every chance that DoC will defy 
stability, Congress and everyone else and duplicate the TLD.  When
things start getting messy and there is a lot of screaming, it will be
too late.

> 
> As for creating problems for the ISP and keeping track of two
> different .biz names they might be hosting, well, tough...the ISPs
> are just going to have to pick a horse to ride.  

If it were quite that simple, fine.  Let the ISPs scream bloody 
murder, I guess.  ( I don't really feel that way)  If I were an ISp
and my cost for customer service went through the roof over it, I'd
scream loud.  When they start with the lawsuits, it'll get more
interesting, I'm sure.  You see, it's not the root choice that they
will be fighting.  It's the mass confusion over how to host the
domains.  Most domain name holders haven't a clue and many ISPs don't
either.

Do they want to ride the
> one that currently has the most viewers or do they want to ride the
> new kid on the block with potential but less viewers.  IMHO, it's a
> business decision for the ISPs, etc., plain and simple.  It might
> even be likened to the VHS/Betamax dilemma for VCR manufacturers,
> tape manufacturers, etc. a couple decades ago.  Did they want to
> ride the less used but supposedly more technically advanced Betamax
> horse or did they want to ride the more popular but less technically
> advanced VHS horse. (Note: My comment on whether VHS or Betamax was
> more technically advanced should not be construed as a comment on
> the technical capabilities of either the ICANN root or the
> alternative roots.)
> 
> Anyway, my suggestion to the alternative roots is to think and do
> marketing, marketing, marketing.  And if they don't get busy real
> soon, somebody new with deep marketing pockets just might show up
> right around the corner, steal all the thunder, and create a third
> .biz.  Oops, too late!  They already did!  New.Net, anyone?  (Okay,
> okay...so new.net isn't offering .biz...yet!  Sorry to scare some of
> you out there.  But there is not a thing in the world preventing
> them from doing so if they wanted to.)

This is true - today.  After all, New.net did it in abundance with 17
colliding TLDs.  We haven't seen too much trouble yet, but wait until
.biz is duplicated in the root with the 90 % market share.  That's
when we might see it hit the fan in a big way.  Marketing is important
for the Inclusive Name Space, for sure.  However, the collisions will
become apparent if DoC does its thing.  

In the meantime, we watch and we keep moving on.  It's still wrong for
the US government to take a business product from an existing business
and hand it over to someone else.  We'll see...

Leah

> 
> Anyway, I think I proved my point...I have way too much time on my
> hands these days.  Phew!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> --
> jeff field
> 925-283-4083
> jfield@aaaq.com
> 
> > Even though it is quite possible to have the same TLD in different
> > roots, there will be a nightmare for hosting companies who will
> > have no idea which is which, whether they already have a zone set
> > up for an identical domain name...
> >
> > It also fragments the net irrevocably because you will then HAVE
> > TO choose one root over another and keep switching to see each
> > version of .BIZ.  Now it doesn't matter which root you point to.
> > They all carry the USG root TLDs as well as their additional non-
> > colliding TLDs.  If DoC enters a dupe, then there is no way to do
> > this any more.  Roots will then have to choose which .BIZ to
> > carry. The name space is fractured, period.
> >
> > In addition, how will it be determined who's domain name is the
> > legitimate one?  (hint:  both).  So how do businesses market their
> > sites/names?  Will the roots always carry the same version of the
> > TLD?
> >
> > DoC will introduce not only a collider, but will be instrumental
> > in wreaking havoc on the ISP industry as well as the TLD industry
> > - all because ICANN has decided these TLDs don't matter and the
> > only root is the DoC root.  The precedent is set.  The US
> > government can just take your business product if it chooses to
> > not acknowledge you. Great.  This is maintaining the stability of
> > the net?
> >
> > Leah
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > > > jp@ADNS.NET Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:00 PM To:
> > > > ga@dnso.org Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituenc> .BIZ belongs
> > > > to Leah Gallagos and AtlanticRoot - Reassignment by DoC is a
> > > > violation of the APA and a violation of the 5th Amendment
> > > > Takings Clause.
> > >
> > > While we're on this topic, can anyone define what seems to be
> > > the popular term "collision" when referring to .biz and the
> > > presence of two .biz's on the Internet?  Is there a technical
> > > collision that will actually occur if we have two .biz's?  Or
> > > can both reside, each listed in different roots, without
> > > affecting the other?  If that's the case, then it seems to me
> > > that what we have here is more a marketing collision than a
> > > technical one. Anyone?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > > --
> > > jeff field
> > > 925-283-4083
> > > jfield@aaaq.com
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html