[ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Mr. Chairman,

the DNSO/GA has been hampered by internal problems not permitting me to 
formally propose this letter to a debate. It is therefore sent only under 
my name. It represents however the questions of several and your response 
will certainly be studied carefully by many.

I have two questions. The first one is strategic to the Internet and the 
second is technical and legal. Both of them concern the decision of 
introducing a "bis.biz" TLD colliding with the existing ".biz" TLD.

1. the strategic question is the following.

You cannot ignore that the possible support by the iCANN of a second .biz 
is opposed and is not therefore based upon consensus. This means that the 
iCANN is here going beyond its Charter which is to manage the Consensus. 
Some may argue that iCANN opponents are not representative and give fuel to 
an interesting theory of Consensus by exclusion. Others will respond - and 
I suppose you are among them - that bylaws give the iCANN the right to act 
without consensus should the motive or the urgency be good enough.

In all the ".biz" controversy we have heard many con and pros. There is 
however a pro we never heard until now and that we are eager to hear from 
you: why is that so important to the Internet about the ".biz" TLD? And 
what made you vote to take it away from Leah Gallagos?


2. The second question is both technical and legal. I will handle it 
through a study case.

     Background

DNS timers, machine failures, mail service overloads, etc. do not permit to 
know which machine  an e-mail will travel through. The iCANN excludes the 
augmented roots from its own root. The augmented roots include the whole 
inclusive name space, i.e. every non colliding TLD including iCANN's TLDs. 
It is not possible to foresee the root used by every machine on an e-mail path.

In case of collision (the same TLD being used on different roots) this 
means that a mail bound to a given host under one root, may land on another 
host under another root.

This is different from an error or of the hacking of the mail service. Here 
the mail service works perfectly: the final error is the result of the 
network misconfiguration which is the TLD collision.

     Description of the case (the use of IBM name is just for better 
understanding)

1) let suppose my name is Ian B. Martinez and I own ibm.biz on existing 
".biz" service.
2) let suppose the DoC authorizes the iCANN to proceed with your own ".biz" 
TLD, named here after "bis.biz" for better understanding.

     Questions:

3) I send a mail to accounting@ibm.biz. Can you certify that that mail will 
always reach my own "accounting" mailbox on my own ibm.biz host (and not 
one under "bis.biz")?

4) the IBM Tax Advisor sends a mail to the IBM, Accounting VP at 
accounting@ibm.biz (i.e. bis.biz). Can you certify that his mail will never 
reach my own ibm.biz host?

5) can you certify the iCANN and the DoC are not legally responsible for a 
possible wrong delivery while they decided to create this misconfiguration?

6) I assume that I am the legitimate owner of the data I receive in my 
mailbox and I may freely disclose it to the press (BTW could be sent to me 
on purpose). Can you certify that the iCANN and the DoC will not be held 
responsible for the harm which might result to IBM?

7) if a mail of mine was received by another party and discolsed due to the 
collision iCANN would have advised to the DoC, who would you advise me to 
sue?

8) are you ready to take personal responsibility for these responses? Board 
Members may be held legally and financially responsible of their decisions. 
Has the iCANN subscribed a protection scheme in the case the victim(s) of 
such a leak would want to sue them ?

I do thank you for your attention and your time.
I will certainly value your responses.

Jefsey Morfin

Copy:
Members of the Board
DNSO/GA
icann-fra




--
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