<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf
No, Mr. Lovell, it is not that benign at all!
A great underlying story line here is that THE .biz has a lacking commercial
business plan. I wish more churches would follow this model and be more humble in
providing service. They are attempting to be truly good and not overly commercial.
But this goodness is the weakness which will lead them to the martyr's death.
I have "faith" that although there was a 12-2 vote today affirmiing the dotBIZ
contrat with ICANN that the DoC being all new like me, will read the documents in
order to come to a conclusion. You see that is the great underlying/underlying theme
DoC guys are either new or they have to justify their positions so every one is
scrambling for the documentation which can only serve to damn ICANN and the previous
DoC after Burke left. Holy cow can you imagine, ICANN and their deals without the
winks and nods being recorded. The great horse breeding case of Naciemento Miss,
millions of dollars in the balance and when the gavel came down the judge looked at
me and said, when will you idiots start putting changes in writing? Well when will
ICANN learn the same lesson? That which is written is contrary to the acceptance of
the ICANN - .biz.
"William S. Lovell" wrote:
> So is this a case of "reverse TLD hijacking?" Instead of mom and pop having
> a domain name on which to post their grandchildren's refrigerator art, but which
> name has commercial signicance so BIG BAD CORPORATION starts up the
> UDRP or whatever, we have a TLD that after all these years likewise turns out
> to have commercial significance, so ICANN sets out to duplicate it through its
> own procedural clout?
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> L Gallegos wrote:
>
> > On 8 May 2001, at 13:26, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Kent, that is about the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long
> > time. .BIZ has been on the public net since 1995. Others have been
> > there many years more (1985). I didn't introduce it and you know it. I
> > got the delegation after it had been around for years. If ICANN had not
> > endeavored to duplicate it, there would be no problem. If and when
> > ICANN dupliates others, it will be just as bad. Talk about irresponsible
> > behavior!
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > The negligence is on the part of ICANN since they were aware of the
> > existence of .BIZ and were fully aware of the consequences of
> > duplicating it. As usual, you are reversing the situation. It's rather like
> > the cheater accusing the spouse of cheating to cover his own
> > misbehavior. Happens all the time. .BIZ pre-existed ICANN's dupe.
> > Simple.
> >
> > Once more, Kent. The DNS is singular. Roots are not. Roots are not
> > the name space. DNS is. Most of the kids in school can think that
> > through.
> >
> > >
> > > If I were Ms Gellagos, I would be thinking very hard about this.
> >
> > Careful, Kent. And my name is spelled Gallegos, thank you.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|