Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Jefsey, I'm sure you didn't realize it, but you have made the strongest 
case I have seen so far for my proposal that there should be legal 
sanctions against the connection of alternate root system to the global 
Internet.  And of course, I don't speak for Dr Cerf in this matter.  
But you have posted these comments far and wide, and indicate yourself 
that you expect public response.

Comments below:

On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:56:26PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Dear Mr. Chairman,
> 
[...]

> 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.

Both are clearly true.

> 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: what is that so important to the Internet about the ".biz" TLD? And 
> what made you vote to take it away from Leah Gallagos?

Nothing is being taken away from her.  She chose to use an alternate
root system that was very unwisely connected to the global internet, and
she can continue to do so.  However, her actions were irresponsible in
that they ignored a very large scale process that has been going on for
years, and she must take the consequences. 

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

The misconfiguration is in creation of a .biz in an alternate root 
system, and connecting that to the global Internet -- an action which 
exposes one to all kinds of problems, not just the one you outline.

> 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?

Actually, the entity that needs to worry about being held responsible 
is the party who created an alternate TLD and advertised it.

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

The operator of the .biz that is operating in an alternate root.  Such
operation is in direct contradiction to the best technical advice
available (RFC 2826), and it is clearly irresponsible to operate in
contradiction to such authoritative advice.  I am not a lawyer, but in a
US court, at least, willfully ignoring such important and widely known
information would be extremely damaging -- worse than mere negligence.

If I were Ms Gellagos, I would be thinking very hard about this.

-- 
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