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

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

I can't speak for everyone, only for myself.  While I believe that 
DoC should include all non-colliding operational tlds, I have never 
made that my mantra.  I do insist that that to introduce a colliding 
TLD is going to create technical chaos and should not be allowed 
under any circumstances.

Any root can carry any subset of existing TLDs and I don't think 
that anyone has said anything different.  Some will be inclusive and 
some will not.  As long as there are no colliders, people can choose 
what they prefer.  

I have exceeded my five posts for today, so this is it.

> 
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > From: Dassa [mailto:dassa@dhs.org]
> > > What claim are you refering to Roeland?  That anyone can create
> > > additions to the name space, this is done all the time with
> > > sub-domains.  That not everyone is allowed to add additional
> > > TLD's, that is an established fact.  
> > This is a fact that is amply disproven. The other TLDs exist. That
> > is a fact. There is no issue of "allow". The principle is; that
> > which is not specifically disallowed, is allowed.
> 
> The "other TLDs" exist in non-ICANN/DOC/legacy/USG name-space. True,
> it is allowed to create alternative namespaces. Trying to mix concepts
> is misleading to say the least. The fact that you can run a
> ".web",".per",".earth"... outside the legacy roots gives no right to
> be included *IN* the legacy roots. So far, all that you guys have
> proven is that you are allowed to run your own root-zone (akin to
> playing in your own sandbox). What you keep trying to push down the
> throats of everyone else (and keep trying to convince that it's the
> other way around) is your own minority namespace. You paint it as
> unfairness, unconstitutional, discrimination, restriction of business,
> going against the principles on which the internet was built etc...
> Whatever story fits best (usually with a hammer) on that particular
> day. So far the most memorable accomplishment of all of the
> "alternative" root-zones and alternative TLDs has to slow down the
> enlargement process to nearly a standstill (what was the date of the
> kickoff of discussions with the original postel draft? circa '94 I
> think).
> 
> You say that which is not specifically disallowed is allowed. Quaint,
> but an oversimplification. Show me one instance of a non-ccTLD being
> added to the legacy roots in the past 4 years that proves your point.
> It hasn't happened. All attempts have been purposefully blocked (most
> notable .web trying to sue its way into the legacy root). I think we
> can conclude that your collective efforts have been disallowed
> constantly and without fault up to the present day (efforts of getting
> your info into the legacy roots). Your efforts of running your own
> roots have, on the other hand, never been challenged. And, btw, I hope
> you guys continue to run non-legacy roots, as it keeps the legacy one
> awake.
> 
> > > ICANN currently has that delegated power, no one else. 
> > ICANN has a delegated power. It is not exclusive. There is no law,
> > nor can there be a law, that prevents someone operatiing of their
> > own root server systems or publishing their own root zone file, or
> > for others to use it.
> 
> And nobody is arguing against that. ICANN holds the delegated power to
> control the legacy root. We are talking about who has the power to
> enter information into the legacy root. You can continue to have your
> own root-zone as you have demonstrated for a few years now. Note, it
> is YOUR root-zone. You have so far demonstrated no right to impose
> YOUR data on others. You have demonstrated that others have the RIGHT
> to consult what you allow free access to, and you have demonstrated
> that you have the right to publish that data. You are however trying
> to take it one step further and obliging the legacy root-zone to
> include your data. That, as you know, is overstepping your rights.
> 
> > > That they opted out of the legacy system, established fact
> > > evidenced by their creating their own name spaces with TLD's not
> > > supported in the legacy system. 
> > There is no established link between your evidence and your fact.
> > The creation of additional names does not automatically exclude one
> > from the political system.
> 
> That they have created their own namespace is established fact. That
> you can't run on two root-zones at the same time is also established
> fact. If you run on a non-legacy root-zone, you have opted out
> (voluntarily) of the legacy namespace. More so when I constantly hear
> the managers of alternative root-zones affirming that they do not
> author from the ICANN namespace as basis for their rootzones...
> 
> > > That they have no authority within the legacy system, established
> > > fact. 
> > 
> > I disagree. Or are you claiming that ICANN is an exclusive,
> > non-transparent, club? By directive, it is otherwise. 
> 
> On this one I'm with you Roeland (as demonstrated by the fact that
> nobody is censoring your voice). However, your personal efforts to one
> side of ICANN do NOT entitle you to a larger voice than anyone else
> (in many eyes that discredits you, but that is always on a personal
> basis). Proportionately & collectively, the alternative rootzone
> managers unfortunately seem to have a rather larger voice than the
> less than .5% of people who actually are served somewhat by their
> servers. This is unfair, but then again it seems that they turn up
> more than the others (fanatics?).
> 
> > > That they shouldn't have any authority, self
> > > evident as they opted out and have no control over the legacy
> > > system.
> > 
> > Circular argument. It only holds if the declaration above holds and
> > it doesn't.
> 
> Agree again with you Roeland. But that authority should have a .5%
> weight in the vote in reality (of course, then we enter into problems
> of mob-rule which these guys would complain about... but all voting
> systems have their deficiencies).
> 
> Yours, John Broomfield.
> --
> 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