[ga] Edelman's report on BIZ

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Ben:

It's good to have a fact-based discussion of the .biz problem.

The picture of the ARNI registrations is a very valuable
contribution to our understanding of the issue. It provides some
basis for discussing the relationship between the ICANN process
and the claims established outside of it.

Your treatment of the facts, however, is incomplete 
and borders on the selective in certain respects.

To begin with, you start your history with the ICANN TLD process.
It is well known that the .BIZ top-level domain was first proposed,
and operated, by Karl Denninger some time in 1996.
No accurate treatment of this problem can ignore the historical
context from which the debate over alternate roots emerged.

There is a record, I believe, of a transaction between Leah Gallegos
and Denniger to take over rights to .Biz. Your report makes it seem
as if Neulevel invented the proposed TLD and that it was first
broached in the ICANN TLD process. This gives the impression
that Gallegos simply skimmed ICANN proposals and imitated 
the Neulevel proposal. 

I have already seen one message that has jumped to that conclusion.

I don't think that's true. At any rate, your hypothesis (insinuation?) would 
be decisively strengthened or refuted if your report includes the facts 
about when Gallegos concluded her deal with Denniger. Did it 
happen before or after the ICANN proposals were posted in
October?

Another point you need to clarify is that in October Gallegos 
did not know, and could not have known (unless the ICANN process is 
even more messed up than some of us think) that the .biz application 
was going to be successful.

A final, perhaps most important question. Your data show that the vast
majority of the biz registrations came AFTER ICANN had assigned 
BIZ in its root to Neulevel, and that the concentration among a few 
holders decreased. 

I wonder how you explain that! 

If Gallegos got all of her registrations right BEFORE ICANN had made 
a decision, one could make a case that her property claim is just 
speculative piggybacking on the icann process in a way that might be 
described as deceptive and parasitical. 

But if the registrations were made afterwards, in full knowledge of 
the fact that they will not be in the ICANN root and may even conflict
with a much more powerful and global business, I am wondering what
conclusion to draw. 

I look forward to seeing your report improved and revised along
these lines.

Oh and a final point. What is the point of organizing a completely
separate discussion forum, that requires that we register with you?
I would encourage you to put all this discussion on the ga-roots 
email list, where it will be publicly archived and accessible to those
making policy in this area.

--MM

--
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