Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org

I believe that it is fair to say that the average consumer does not know what ICANN is.  It also may be fair to say that the average consumer could care less about knowing what ICANN is.  It may be fair to say that when the average consumer registers a domain name that they expect the domain name to work and for the domain name to be accessible via the Internet or legacy root system.

ICANN probably knew of the .biz and other TLDs used by the alternative root systems before its approved certain of those New TLDs.  If this is the case, then you should know that ICANN has a game plan that will not benefit the altTLDs.

The United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has broad jurisdiction over consumer protection issues and the FTC has broad jurisdiction over the ability to define what the average consumer believes.

To answer your question regarding how the FTC can find the term "NON-ICANN TLD" misleading is:

1.  The average consumer does not know what ICANN is; and
2.  The FTC only needs to show that there is the possibility that the average consumer could be confused by the use of the subject term; and
3.  The FTC only needs to show that a certain segment of an industry is disrupting a generally known and established standard understood by the average consumer.  The average consumer understands that when a domain name is typed in a Web browser it should work over the Internet.

You claim that you have hundreds of customers who are not confused about the altTLD issue, however, this is not enough to stop the consumer confusion allegations.

It appears that the FTC will be the government agency that will engage the industry to stop and prevent consumer confusion, TLD collisions, and fracture of the Internet, if ICANN is successful at proposing its agreements and policy changes to DoC in September 2001.  This can be shown by the FTC's active and growing involvement in the domain name industry and the significance of the consumer confusion issue in the domain name industry.  This can also be shown by ICANN's aggressive processes and approval of certain New TLDs.  The FTC appears to be the only law enforcement agency with the jurisdiction at this point to stop and prevent the consumer confusion issues that are surfacing in the domain name industry. This appears to be how the U.S. Government will solve the altTLD arguments at this point unless altTLD representatives can properly offset the consumer confusion argument.

You claim that the argument for the FTC is simple, which is that the altTLD is no more confusing than the introduction of any new service for which one is unfamiliar.  The problem with this position is that U.S. Government and ICANN will claim that its legacy root system is the domain name industry standard and that of which the average consumer is familiar with.  The U.S. government will claim that altTLDs confuse the average consumer.

You use the term "inclusive" name space.  I have thought about the terms "alternative" vs. "inclusive".  You may stand a better chance going up against a generally recognized standard by stating that your service is an alternative service.  It is probably not realistic to believe that the U.S. Government and ICANN will accept some other root service to be a generally recognized standard when the U.S. Government and ICANN claim that its root system is the standard.  In this scenario, alternative root services or altTLDs may be the better way to go.  Then, you may have more room to maneuver.

You described in your comment, to say that a business with a small market share cannot grow to have a large market share and therefore has no right to exist would eliminate any reason or possibility for any startup in a free market.  My response to you is that this is one of the functions of the FTC.  We are not going to get anywhere claiming matters of law related to the U.S. Constitution in this case, or pleading to elected officials.

We need to use a common sense approach that communicates and shows that legacy TLDs can exist in the very same name space as the alternative TLDs.  This is the real issue concerning TLDs.  If stakeholders and interested parties can quickly figure this one out and come up with a good argument, then maybe the argument can offset ICANN's position.

Now, I hope you can see that I am trying to help here.  I am not saying that I am right.  I am giving my opinion at this point.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

JandL wrote:

I have been off-line for two days due a cable cut in this area
(Verizon).  I have been going through the 475 messages I just
received and found the strings very interesting, especially the
inference of misleading information on websites.

I would like to know how "This is a NON-ICANN TLD" is misleading.
There are also instructions detailing how a user can see the rest of
the internet.

I can also tell you that out of the hundreds of messages and phone
calls I field daily that I have yet to find a user who is confused
about this issue.  The only confusion I find is the assumption or fear
that ICANN will "take" domain names from those who have
registered them once ICANN loads the duplicate .BIZ.

The argument for the FTC is quite simple.  It is no more confusing
than the introduction of any service for which one is unfamiliar.
The really simple fact is there is no difference between .com and
.here in terms of functionality.  The only difference is how to "see"
them.  The confusion will come when there are two of any TLD and
users will have no idea which one they see or where their mail will
go.

It is NOT the inclusive name space TLDs or roots that will cause this
confusion.  It will be ICANN and DoC if they introduce the duplicates.

It is not a marketing issue, Derek.  It is a technical one.  To say
that a business with a small market share cannot grow to have a
large market share and therefore has no right to exist would
eliminate any reason or possibility for any startup in a free market.
That is patently ridiculous, counter to the founding of the US and
against the US constitution.

I cannot speak for other TLD holders, but I can say that ARNI has
not mislead registrants and has gone well beyond any reasonable
efforts to ensure that registrants have complete knowledge of what
we're all about.  If I am questioned wrt to our operation, I am
completely open about it.  There is nothing clandestine about
registering a dotBIZ domain.  You register it, it works and to access
it on the web, you need to point your PC to the appropriate
servers.  No big deal.

I have written you off list wrt to the simple bottom line.  There will
be a chaotic situation if DoC enters a duplicate into the USG root.
That is a given.  The misinformation is coming from ICANN and not
ARNI.  It is a FUD campaign.  Hopefully, our uneduated elected
members will find out prior to making any huge mistakes like they did
with the ACPA, but we can only hope.  This mistake could have
much wider repercussions and market share has little to do with it.
You see, a collison is a collison whether it's between 4000 or 4
million.  When mail meant for a subsidiary of a large company goes
to the duplicate small company or vice versa, it is mail going to the
wrong recipient, isn't it?  How would you like your bank information
sent to the wrong recipient because an ISP is pointing to particular
servers?  Worse, how about your medical records?  Want to
guarantee that every medical professional is dialed up to an ISP
pointing to the DoC root?  I can tell you right now that it is not the
case.

I will say it again.  If there is no duplicate in the USG root, then the
mail will either go to the correct recipient or bounce.  If there is a
duplicate, there is no telling where it will go because it will depend
on whose servers one points to either individually or via ISP
connectivity.  I can also tell you that assuming less than one
percent is way off, especially outside the US.  It is climbing
geometrically and indications are that it exceeds 5% without
new.net.  That's more than a 500 percent increase in less than 2
years with most of the increase in the last year.  The most common
comments I receive are "gosh, this has opened a whole new world
for me. I didn't know this existed until recently."

As more of the public becomes informed, the number of users
choosing to point to the inclusive name space will increase
accordingly.  We are still seeing the infancy of the evolution of the
Internet.

Leah

> Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
> http://www.dnsga.org
>
> The DNSGA is involved in an active approach of which the DNSO and GA
> cannot pursue because of their conflicts and association with ICANN.
>
> The DNSGA replied yesterday to Leah representing the AtlanticRoot
> Network, Inc. as follows:
>
> You are raising very interesting points concerning the alternative
> root community.
>
> However, the DNSGA was focusing on the matter of alternative root
> Registrars advertising practices and their claims that describe
> alternative root domain names to be the same as .com domain names.
> Clearly there is a difference in that .com domain names cannot access
> alternative root domain names unless a workstation computer or ISP is
> pointing to the alternative root. This appears confusing to the
> average consumer who registers a domain name. The average consumer
> understands .com, but does not understand the alternative root
> domains.
>
> The matter the DNSGA was focusing on in its comment is the United
> States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jurisdiction over advertising
> practices and consumer protection. It appears that the FTC can claim
> that the average consumer understands .com, but not the alternative
> root domains. This is all the FTC needs to engage businesses claiming
> that alternative root domain names are the same as .com domain names.
> The FTC can claim that alternative root domain names are not
> equivalent to .com domain names. The FTC is a powerful agency with
> broad jurisdiction. The FTC could prevent U.S. businesses from selling
> alternative root domain names to consumers.
>
> It is important for organizations like yours to participate in
> explaining your opinion regarding how the alternative root community
> will be compatible with the .com root system.
>
> So, the issue right now are the representation made to consumers
> regarding alternative root domain names vs. the .com domain names.
> Arguments concerning other uses of alternative root communities may
> come later.
>
> If organizations like yours, and interested parties, do not
> participate in forums now to explain the compatibility issues and
> develop solutions that can be communicated to government, ICANN may be
> successful at convincing the United States Department of Commerce
> ("DoC") and international Government Advisory Committee ("GAC")
> representatives that ICANN policies and agreements must be accepted or
> else alternative roots will create chaos and fracture the Internet.
> This could be enough to convince World governments to consolidate
> against the alternative root community.
>
> Alternative root community representatives should immediately
> participate in explaining their position to the industry. The DNSGA is
> a vehicle that can effectively communicate to the United States
> Government ("USG") the significant arguments concerning the
> alternative root community.
>
> The DNSGA is scheduled to file a legal action with the DoC May 2001.
> The DNSGA will address alternative root issues and other matters and
> we invite you to participate in submitting your comments or opinion
> regarding the alternative root community so that we can better
> understand this matter and the compatibility issues and develop
> solutions.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
>
> > Geez!
> >
> > Well, everyone knows that I really do refrain from paying any
> > attention to your payrolled nonsense,  but I'm going to clarify
> > something for you Dave, so read very, very, carefully ok?
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> > > There is no "inclusive" namespace.
> >
> > Then you are blind.
> >
> > >
> > > What you are suggesting is that folks who have been independently
> > > running their own namespace should be given power to restrict
> > > ICANN's namespace.
> > >
> >
> > It's not ICANN's namespace. It's mine. And it's every other
> > commercial provider's and subscriber's. We built it. We OWN it.
> >
> > > That's not an "inclusive" namespace, it is restrictive, by virtue
> > > of restricting ICANN's choices over the namespace for which it has
> > responsibility.
> >
> > ICANN is a pretender.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>