Re: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kent and all assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:07:16PM +0100, Paul Cotton wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> >
> > Almost as mind-numbingly stupid as claiming that Nominet could use some
> > alternate root service.  Both claims are irresponsible, unrealistic
> > bluster.
> > --- end ---
> >
> > The scenario related to Nominet being forced into the position by ICANN.
>
> While Mr Walsh has suggested such an action, no one from ICANN has
> *ever* made even a remote suggestion of doing anything like that.

  Yes, WXW has a strong tendency to get carried away with himself...

>  All
> the threats of going to alternate roots have come from particular
> persons involved with particular ccTLDs who are upset because they
> don't like someone at ICANN, or because they don't like the proposals
> ICANN has made.

  I believe the latter is true.  But not the former here.  Speculation is so
fun, isn't it Kent?  And you do it straight faced too!  Amazing!  >;)

>
>
> > Obviously it would be emminently preferable for Nominet to remain a part of
> > the ICANN root for .uk - but given the dominant domestic nature of .uk if
> > the hand were forced, UK ISP's could use an alternative root server that did
> > resolve Nominets .uk's outside of ICANN's root.  Nobody in their right mind
> > would WANT this to happen, but if circumstances dictated then it could be
> > done.  I have no doubt the UK government would side with Nominet over
> > ICANN's wishes and the ISP's would ensure they could offer all the .uk sites
> > that their customers wanted.
>
> I can *easily* imagine circumstances where the UK government would not
> side with Nominet.  Bear in mind that the new registry would also be
> British -- perhaps a very large British ISP...

  Ahhhh!  Another hint, eh?  Building the case against Nominet behind their
back perhaps?  Rumor has it that some of the ICANN BoD and ex-Bod
members are doing just that....

>
>
> I have talked with government officials who are very unhappy with
> "their" ccTLD registry, and who are actively seeking ways to get control
> of it.  There are other cases where the registry and the government are
> happy with each other.

  True.  I have also talked to a number of government officials that would
prefer to control or manage their ccTLD themselves.  Others on the other hand
don't want to or don't feel they have the ability to, and do it well...

>
>
> > --- start ---
> > Perhaps.  But 1) ISPs don't handle all name resolutions, and thus, they
> > can't really solve the problem; and 2) ISPs in the rest of the world
> > would not be under such a constraint.  The banks etc would have to
> > decide whether they wanted their names to resolve outside the UK, in the
> > root zone that 99% of the rest of the world uses.  If so, they would
> > quickly register in the new registry.  Otherwise, they might not.  The
> > ICANN root zone offers some thing that no ccTLD root zone could offer --
> > current and continuing worldwide visibility.
> > --- end ---
> >
> > This ignores that .uk is more important to the domestic market rather than
> > to the worldwide arena.
>
> No, I didn't ignore that.  I'm moderately familiar with Nominet's
> situation, I think.
>
> >  The banks etc would want to look after their
> > customers, and their customers would want to be able to resolve the entire
> > existing .uk namespace as that is where a significant proportion of the
> > sites they already use would reside.  It would not be necessary for the
> > domain registrants to register in the new registry, as the close to 3
> > million existing nominet .uk registrations are reason enough for ISP's to
> > make sure they can offer that resolution.
>
> You missed my point, I think.  The banks would be registered in *both*
> versions of .uk, so that they would get maximum coverage.  The new
> registry could offer free registrations to those who could demonstrate
> a registration in nominet (easy to do, since the information is
> public).  Pretty soon the overlap would be very high, and there would
> be little incentive to keep Nominet over the new *British* registry.

  Ahhhh!  Another hint here for replacing Nominet perhaps?

>
> Might take many years, but I think that worldwide access will become
> more important over time.

  Well with Shared Roots, this becomes moot really.

>
>
> > Never underestimate the power of patriotism even in the face of logic,
> > especially in the UK.
>
> There are scenarios where patriotism might dictate the elimination of
> Nominet.  It is an assumption that Nominet continues to do a good job.

  Good is in the eye of the beholder.  THe beholder(s) that matter are the
stakeholders/users.  If they feel that a new Registry should take over .UK
than it should be done.  However this would require that those stakeholders/users
have a vote.  The ALSC, and the ICANN BOD and staff seem bent against
this.  So, in the final analysis, the ICANN BoD and staff, from a top
down process, would dictate whom or what entity, is re-delegated
any ccTLD.  And this is where the danger for ccTLD managers, stakeholders/
users really resides....

>
>
> > I understand this is all hyperthetical argument and it simply won't happen
> > regardless.
>
> Reality is so complex :-)

  Reality is simple.  People make it look complex for a myriad of
reasons....

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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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