RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

["Jeff Field" <jfield@aaaq.com>]

All this McDonalds/Burger King food talk got me thinking (a sometimes
dangerous thing)...

Today you have the ICANN root (McDonalds), the PacificRoot root (Burger
King), and perhaps some other roots (Wendys, Jack In The Box, etc....but
let's keep this simple).  Well, if I'm McDonalds, I don't sell Burger King
food (unless I want to and have an agreement with Burger King that allows me
to do so).  And, if I'm Burger King, I don't sell McDonalds food (unless I
want to and have an agreement with McDonalds that allows me to do so).  On
that, I think we can all agree.

Applying the above well-accepted business practice to the ICANN root vs.
alternative root situation, and the idea that the roots are for all intents
and purposes in competition with each other...

It would seem to me that PacificRoot has no right to include in their root
the gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, etc.) or the ccTLDs (.uk, .au, .fr, etc.) that
are contained in the ICANN root (hopefully, we can all agree that those TLDs
were in the ICANN root first).  By the same logic, the ICANN root also has
no right to include in their root the TLD's (.web, .biz, .scuba, etc.) that
are contained in PacificRoot's root (hopefully, we can all agree that those
TLDs were in PacificRoot's root first).

If we can all agree on the statements above, then it would seem to me that
the answer to the ICANN root vs. alternative root situation might be
relatively simple...

ICANN should request that PacificRoot immediately remove all ICANN TLDs from
their systems.  If PacificRoot refuses to do so, ICANN should pursue all
legal means to accomplish this goal (it's definitely a fair competition
issue, after all, they're trying to drive traffic to their system and away
from ICANN's system).  By the same token, ICANN should agree not to include
in the ICANN root all the TLDs currently in PacificRoot's root (yes, that
means giving up .biz...I'll deal with that below).

Obviously, the practical effect of all this is that traffic to PacificRoot's
root would dwindle to a trickle and the commercial value of .biz and .web
and the other TLDs being in their root would quickly go to nil.  At that
point, the .web and .biz registries (and the others) would have to make a
decision; either stay with PacificRoot's root or try to get into ICANN's
root.  If they want to stay in PacificRoot's root, fine.  If they want to
get into ICANN's root, fine again...all they have to do is apply and be
accepted.  Simple solution, huh?  But wait...

I know, I know...I left out one little detail.  What to do with Melbourne IT
and the fact that ICANN already awarded them .biz?  Well, assuming you could
make all the above happen, I have to believe that both the .web and .biz
registries would take a hard look at their business models and conclude that
the ICANN root would be the only place to be.  Otherwise, having the rights
to register .web and .biz domain names would be worth roughly zip.  And, if
I were either, I would jump at the chance to cut a deal with Melbourne IT to
get in on this first round of new TLDs.  And, if I were Melbourne IT, I just
might jump at the chance to replace .biz with .web.  So, the solution to
this problem just might be to...

Get ICANN, Melbourne IT, Christopher Ambler (.web), and Leah Gallegos (.biz)
all in the same vicinity and let them play, "Let's Make A Deal"!  The
dynamics might be:

- .web might see value in being included in the first round of new TLDs and
want to cut a deal with Melbourne IT
- .biz might see value in being included in the first round of new TLDs and
want to cut a deal with Melbourne IT
- .web and .biz might compete with each other to cut a deal with Melbourne
IT
- ICANN just wants to put this whole problem to bed with any kind of
reasonable solution

As a carrot to get a deal done, ICANN might/should consider making a rule
for all future registry applications along the following lines, "the entity
making application may not currently be operational in any other root system
nor lay claim to any previously held or believed to be previously held IP
(Intellectual Property) rights for the particular TLD for which it is
applying".  IOW, the entity making a future application would be on equal
footing with any other entity which submits an application for the same TLD.
So, .web and .biz could stay in PacificRoot's root and never go anywhere or
take the chance on a future application with ICANN...but not before they
gave up their previous claims to the TLD and stood on equal footing with any
other entity that wants the same TLD.  So, if I were Christopher or Leah, I
think I'd want to cut a deal this time around.

Anyway, I'm sure there can be some tweaking; I don't have all the
answers...but just thought I'd send this along as "food for thought".

Regards,

Jeff
--
jeff field
925-283-4083
jfield@aaaq.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Ambler
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 7:06 PM
> To: William X. Walsh
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group
>
>
> > Which root server burger chain you go to decides which burgers you
> > can buy.  Which root server network you go to decides which .com TLD
> > you will be resolving.
>
> .com == Big Mac
> .net == Whopper
> .web = Hot and Juicy
>
> I don't care how many roots (burger chains) there are. There's only
> one .com (Big Mac).
>
> Put another way - the first company to put up a serious .com in an
> alternative root will find Verisign on them in a flash.
>
> > Just like McDonald's can't advertise that they are Burger King's.
>
> Nor can they call their burger a Whopper.
>
> > This is why you shouldn't use analogies like that, Chris  :)  No
> > matter what analogy you use it can be twisted around on you to show
> > the other side.  Some more so than others.
>
> Funny, that.
>
> Christopher
>
> --
> 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-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