Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re: Additional Mailing Lists)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:56:52AM +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> Hi Harald
> 
> Many lists would consider your posting to be a breach of list rules of the "me
> too" variety.  In this case you simply say that you do not agree without
> stating any reasons.
> 
> The argument is for a working group to discuss the policy implications of
> alternate roots.
>
> Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's post but by
> stating why you think there are no policy implications for alternative roots?

Alternate roots and alternate TLDs destabalize the name space, and hence
the primary policy question is how strongly ICANN should condemn them. 
So far ICANN has been content with letting the alternate roots (and
alternate TLDs) self-destruct, but I think that with the appeance of
new.net a case could be made that a stronger policy is necessary. 

That's probably worth another motion:

    I move that the GA petition the NC to ask the Board to submit a
    formal letter to the US Federal Trade Commission calling for the
    immediate investigation of all alternate root and alternate TLD
    providers.  

Moreover, I think the US congress should be informed, and that, for
those of us in the US, we should encourage our congresspersons to pass a
law to make knowingly attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the public
Internet a criminal offense.  In other countries I think responsible 
people should take similar measures.

I'm not saying this to be provocative, incidentally -- I really do
believe that attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the Internet runs the
risk of doing serious harm.  As long as the experiments are very small
the risks of damage are very slight, but if the number of participants
in these experiments gets very large, I believe the possibility of
serious damage becomes quite real. 

> In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of discussion then
> why is much of this list taken up with discussing it?

Because there are a number of people who are either living in a
technical dream world, or are willing to damage the Internet for their
own personal gain. 

> As I said, it would
> free up the main list.

That's highly doubtful.

> The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning almost
> everybody.

Interesting that you think that the alternate root crowd is "almost everybody".


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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