Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger....

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

Alexander:

The example used by Mr. Thornton was to illustrate the technical 
prohibition of having duplicate domains.  It was not a political or 
"rights" statement, although that much would follow through.

Put simply, the WWW is not the only purpose or use of the DNS.  It 
is a latecomer to the system, actually.  Email is one other use and 
does not tolerate duplication.  Depending on what servers you point 
to, whether TLD servers or root servers or SLD servers, your mail 
will be routed via those servers.  It only knows to look up that 
name, period.  If the server can find it, the mail will route.  
Therefore, if it is not the server handling the right version of that 
domain, the mail will go to the wrong person.  No duplication of 
domains - no problems.  If the server doesn't know the name, it will 
bounce.  Simple, but no one will get the wrong mail.

As for rights in a TLD and who got there first, it is a fact of life in 
any free market.  These TLDs have been around and operational for 
many years.  They could have been included for everyone years 
ago.  Because ICANN/DoC have been reluctant to do so, we now 
have a public that is outraged and confused.  It is not because of 
the inclusive name space roots.  It is because of a small group who 
believe, wrongly, that the DNS applies only to them that we will see 
massive chaos.  New.net said that anyone has the right to register 
in any TLD.  Not true, as will be evidenced on a huge scale if DoC 
duplicates .BIZ.  

Technically there must be one registry for a TLD and if there are 
additional registrars they must be somehow tied into that registry.  
It must be handled responsibly.  A TLD does not have to originate in 
the USG root, but should be at least recongized as existing to avoid 
duplication.  ARNI has worked responsibly with the Internet and its 
users in mind at all times.  .BIZ was made a representative for all 
TLDs by ICANN's actions in duplicating it.  It is, however, just an 
example of what will come.

The email issue is just one.  Another is hostnames for servers.  
Those must be unique as well and do not service just the WWW.  
There are others issues that will be impacted by duplication.

It IS a single DNS - a single name space, and a serious issue.  If the 
GA has not shown a consensus, perhaps it is due to a lack of 
understanding of the issues.  It seems that the GA has dealt only 
with the web and needs to look at the Internet.  A working group is 
a beginning to gain understanding and develop a consensus, don't 
you think?

Leah

> 
> Dear Bradley,
> 
> first of all, thanks for taking *time* to write down
> your thoughts!
> 
> > Let's take the hypothetical situation where Verizon was granted the
> > authority from The FCC and CPUC to provide duplicate area codes and
> > phone number strings already switched by Pacific Bell. And let's say
> > that someone's child was gravely injured in an automobile accident
> > one evening. And let's just suppose that the police attempted to
> > contact the parents of the gravely injured minor child so that
> > immediate consent could be granted to save the life of that child.
> > Suppose the phone number that the police had on record was one of
> > the colliding duplicates and the "other" party was reached via phone
> > instead of the parents of the innocent child.
> >
> > Now, suppose that child dies as a result of this arbitrary
> > administrative approval of colliding phone numbers by the US
> > Government and the California Public Utilities Commission that had
> > usurped the ability of the law enforcement and medical community to
> > reliably contact the childs parents in time.
> 
> I'm afraid I disagree with the way the proponents of
> alternative roots argue. They may argue that they need
> no authority to set up an alt.root and that's just fine,
> but then I find it hard to understand how they can
> complain that others are not limiting themselves to
> the TLDs left over by the alt.root operators. It
> comes down to the question whether "being there first"
> is sufficient for claiming a Top Level Domain.
> >From the U.S. legal point of view, it seems it isn't
> (at least that is how I understand the court decisions
> about TM rights in TLDs), and although I understand
> that many participants in the GA are personally running
> such alt.roots, I don't think they have a higher moral
> right to any TLD than anybody else.
> (Including ICANN, that is.)
> 
> I also don't think your phone and child story depicts the
> situation adequately. The alt.root phone company would have
> to be a company who e.g. finds and uses a portion of the
> number space which has not been previously occupied (e.g.
> all numbers between 12xxxxxx and 14xxxxxx). So does that
> mean the alt.phone company gains a permanent right in this
> part of the number space? Hardly.
> 
> Alternative root TLDs will lead to alternative resolution
> unless there is some kind of Meta-ICANN making binding
> decisions on both the ICANN/USG root and the alternative
> roots. For phone companies, there is a hierarchical structure
> in place: ITU recommendations, national administrations,
> phone companies etc. But I fail to see a public call for
> such a Meta-ICANN. If the alt.roots had as many users as
> the ICANN/USG roots, they would suffer from the same
> problems and attract the same actors as ICANN does today.
> 
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> --
> 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