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

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

Unfortunately, IMO, you have totally distorted what I wrote you. 

First, The PacificRoot is contracted by AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. to 
Provide registration services for .BIZ and The PacificRoot site as 
well as our own site clearly state that these TLDs are NOT ICANN 
TLDs.  No one has ever been mislead.  We have no problem stating 
that we did not apply to ICANN and that ICANN accepted 
applications for duplicates of existing TLDs, choosing to ignore their 
existence.  Our website also states that we are not going anywhere.

Second, we did not apply to ICANN and have stated that numerous 
times on many lists.  Our registrants have known this from day one.

Third, we were taking registrations long before there was any 
mention of anyone applying for the .BIZ string with ICANN.

Fourth, ICANN did not select .WEB for award to Afilias due to the 
fact that it was an operational registry...

Fifth, the point is that ICANN should not be duplicating any pre-
existing TLD and that is what is causing the damage.

It is not up to us to track which businesses have published 
websites, although we do suggest they let us know so that we can 
publish the URLs. There is no reason to project how much money 
will be lost by each domain name holder.  None of them should have 
to be concerned about anyone else using their domain name, which 
is precisely what will occur with a duplication.  The fact is that they 
are losing money and will lose money due to fear and a lack of 
understanding of the process.  

As for market share, I can tell you that it is growing daily.  There 
were darned few websites in .com in 1995 when I first registered a 
domain name.  There is also no reason to think that TLDs in the 
inclusive name space will not flourish.  At this time, there appears 
to be something like 11% market share.  That's a great deal more 
than two years ago when it was around 1%.  There is actually 
better response outside the US at the moment, which is to be 
expected.  

As for risk, there should be no risk in registration of a domain name 
in any TLD, at least not the risk of the government co-opting it and 
giving it to another entity.  Tell me how you would react if you had 
a business - any business - and the government just took it from 
you and gave your business product to your competitor, causing 
you great damage.  That is what will happen if DoC acts on the 
recommendation from ICANN to enter .BIZ into the USG root for 
Neulevel.

You must realize that .BIZ was created many years ago.  It is not a 
new TLD and ICANN should not have accepted applications for any 
pre-existing operational TLDs.  It was wrong.  No business should 
have to look at that kind of damage because another entity covets 
it. They were notified.  They ignored it.

Regards,

Leah

> Note:  This reply contains portions that have been reprinted from a
> personal email with permission from the author.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JandL [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 5:52 PM
> > To: Jeff Field
> > Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
> >
> > Suffice it to say that www.vitamins.biz is one of many e-commerce
> > sites published under the TLD.
> 
> I checked out the site.  It appears that although vitamins.biz does
> indeed get you to a site, the company is actually doing business under
> the name, "bodyRight.com".  Further, if you use the bodyright.com
> domain name, you end up at a site that looks identical to the
> vitamins.biz site.
> 
> IMHO, I would say this company has attempted to hedge or extend its
> e-commerce bet by registering the vitamins.biz name in the hopes that,
> 1) the alternative root .biz would be the .biz to eventually end up in
> the ICANN root system, and 2) the company would then perhaps be able
> to utilize a better domain name than, or an additional domain name to,
> bodyright.com. In any case, it would appear obvious (to me, at least)
> that this is hardly a site that will be irreparably harmed if their
> .biz name doesn't make it into the ICANN root.
> 
> Any others while I have my DNS temporarily (unless I find a compelling
> reason to stay) pointing to the alternate root?
> 
> > Some registrants are hoping they will be able to secure identical
> > names in the ICANN .biz if it is entered into the root so they won't
> > be killed by them.  Many are concerned that ICANN will "cancel"
> > their registrations because they do not understand the process. This
> > is where most of the damage occurs - they don't understand, so they
> > panic and think we will cut them off somehow or that ICANN will take
> > their names from them.
> 
> Are you the operator of the alternative root .biz registry?  I didn't
> know that (I apologize for my ignorance, if that's the case.  I'm
> relatively new to this list.)!  Then you of all people should
> certainly have known the risks involved when you entered this
> business!
> 
> I have sympathy for some of your customers, the one's that registered
> .biz names in your system because of the misleading copy on the
> registration site.  I have *very* little sympathy for the one's that
> registered names they thought might be worth something if their .biz
> name ever made it into ICANN's root.  They knew what they were doing,
> they've taken the risk, they may (IMO, will) lose...but that's the
> nature of speculation.  Some you win, some you lose.
> 
> > The point is, though, that if you register a domain name, you rely
> > on its being there.
> 
> The .biz domains that have been registered *are* there...they're
> visible to the 1 or 2 percent (or whatever the number is) of the
> Internet users that point their DNS to the alternate root that
> contains .biz.  And anyone that registers a .biz domain name with the
> alternate root .biz registry should know that...at least if the
> registrar or registry makes that perfectly clear ahead of time.  And,
> as mentioned, I personally don't believe that is being done (I refer
> this time to the website copy, "they are real domains....these are all
> active domains".  NOTE: Yes, I know they are "real"; yes, I know they
> are "active".  But nowhere, at least that I could find, does it state
> anything to the effect that 98%, or whatever the number is, of the
> Internet population is not currently set up to access websites with a
> .biz address.).
> 
> > Irreparable harm has been done to our registry
> > since the ICANN selection, certainly.  It is  pretty easy to track
> > the fall off of registrations to that time.
> 
> IMHO, it's not up to ICANN to save your business merely because one of
> the risks you should have known about before going down this path
> might come to fruition.  But please, keep fighting!  This is just the
> sort of thing that makes life interesting.  I just wish you'd be more
> forthright to your customers and potential customers by cleaning up
> your website copy.
> 
> > As far as substantial sites, there are many registrants who are just
> > waiting before they put mega dollars into development of their sites
> > due to the controversy and fear of losing their names.  ICANN has
> > done considerable damage to their business plans.
> 
> Frankly, if anyone wrote a business plan based on the assumption that
> the alternative root .biz would end up being placed in the ICANN root
> system ought not to be writing business plans...unless, of course,
> this particular risk was duly noted in the risk assessment portion of
> the plan.  And if it was, well, they know/knew the risk.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> --
> jeff field
> 925-283-4083
> jfield@aaaq.com
> 
> >
> > Leah
> >
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > > > JandL Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:38 PM To: ga@dnso.org;
> > > > jfield@aaaq.com Cc: jandl@jandl.com Subject: RE: [ga] collisions
> > > > in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
> > > <--- snip --->
> > > > It appears that the basic argument is the same one that ICANN
> > > > uses.  They are responsible for only "their root" and all others
> > > > can do as they please.  The fallacy here is due to the fact that
> > > > there is a singular name space which makes the technical
> > > > argument one of fragmentation of that name space.  Once ICANN
> > > > divides it with a collider, it is a done deal.  Then it's a
> > > > free-for-all. Technically, there cannot be duplicates of any dn
> > > > at any level in the tree.  Since the goal should be that anyone
> > > > can point to any root and not have to wonder which version of a
> > > > domain they will see, and that ICANN is tasked with maintaining
> > > > that stability, their deliberate entry of a collider defeats
> > > > that task or mandate.
> > > <--- snip --->
> > >
> > > The statement above, "Since the goal should be that anyone can
> > > point to any root and not have to wonder which version of a domain
> > > they will see", got me wondering...
> > >
> > > Can anyone name a site, a site of substance, better yet a public
> > > company, that currently operates their main business or provides
> > > their main content utilizing (advertising, promoting, etc.) a
> > > domain name in either .biz or .web, and *not* the .biz or .web
> > > alternative root registry itself, that will be irreparably harmed
> > > if the alternative root .biz or .web TLDs never make it into the
> > > ICANN root?  I'm just wondering if there's anything of substance
> > > happening over there in alternative root country.  Perhaps it's
> > > time to take a look?
> > >
> > > 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
> 


--
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