Re: [ga] Use of ccTLDs as generics?

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Vany, since you mentioned .biz, please be accurate.  There is no 
masquerading of domains, even with new.net. They have simply 
provided a method for those who do not resolve that root to 
navigate via a mirror to the chosen domain site.  In essence, 
registrants actually have two domains for the price of one - an SLD 
and a 4ld.  People register domain names which resolve in the 
DNS just like any other domains.  Unless you are referring to 
people redirecting domains to other domains, (e.g. 
<something>.org redirects or "points" to <something>.com) which 
is done consistently throughout the DNS, you are spreading FUD.  

OTOH, at this time, the orginal .biz domains do not use the 
method that new.net uses and domains resolve via several roots 
other than the legacy USG root.

If ICANN feels it is okay to duplicate existing registries, it must 
also be ready for the consequences of doing so.  Nothing is going 
to prevent the establishment of TLDs all over the world that will be 
carried by roots all over the world.  No matter how much ICANN 
wishes to demand that there be only one root and that ICANN has 
the right to duplicate any existing TLD, the fact remains that there 
are and will be existing TLDs and ICANN's duplicating them will 
created duplicate SLDs, 3lds, ...  As long as ICANN is unwilling to 
respect other entities and not peer with those that are viable, we 
will have this situation.

In addition, it also misleading to say that people who have 
registered domain names in the original registries will lose their 
names or their money.  Those names still resolve and will continue 
to resolve.  The only instances where I could imagine losing a 
name under those circumstances would be litigation between the 
holders of the identical domain.  It is just a shame that there will 
now be many cases where people trying to get to those domains 
many reach a site other than what they expected.  This would not 
have occurred if there had not been a duplication by ICANN.

You see, Vany, people do not necessarily know what root their ISP 
is resolving, so there is no guarantee that a .biz domain will resolve 
the way you think it might.  This will happen with any duplication of 
a TLD in any root.  It will just be that much more noticable when 
ICANN does it due to its current market share.    I'm waiting for 
some radical somewhere outside the US to duplicate .com.

Let's keep in mind a couple of things.  ICANN is a private 
corporation and cannot dictate to anyone not under contract to it.  
ICANN is a US corporation and cannot set policy for any other 
entity or country.  There are millions outside the US who are not 
inclined to favor ICANN and many ISPs who do not resolve that 
root. I was made aware the other day of one ISP in another country 
who now resolves another root and has 1.5 million viewers.  That is 
just one of many who believe in the legitimacy of prior use and also 
wish to offer their users all of the available TLDs.

As for ccTLDs being used as generics, I am certainly not opposed 
to that even though one of them would be in direct competition to 
the original .biz TLD.  ccTLDs should have the automomy to do as 
they wish in marketing as long as they serve the community they 
represent in a manner that is supportive of that community.  In 
many cases, it has brought solvency to countries that otherwise 
were in poverty.

You plan to bring up the issue of what has been termed the alt.tlds 
or alt.roots at the NC meeting.  In the past statements have been 
made that it is not the correct forum for that debate.  I welcome 
your bringing it up again, but strongly object to your 
mischaracterization of their operations.  I also must object to 
changing the focus or topic of the stated agenda and would like to 
know why.

Leah


On 5 Oct 2001, at 1:07, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Vany,
> 
> You had indicated that you will be speaking on "Use of ccTLDs as
> generics" (item #10) in the upcoming Names Council teleconference, but
> it now appears that you have changed the focus of your speech and wish
> to devote ten minutes to attacking New.net.  Why?
> 
> Vany wrote:  "Also I want to clarify the following point:
> 
> > 10. Use of ccTLDs as generics - Vany 
> "The issue that I wanted to deal about was about companies that are
> offering domains under TLDs not created by ICANN, using a technolgy
> that allows them to masquerade existing domains to resolve domains
> under such TLDs.  I think that the NC should say a word in this issue
> because all DNS sectors represented in DNSO are affected.  And if even
> this is not under the power of ICANN to stop it, well, then at least
> that make that ICANN publicly make an statement about it with
> recommendations to the pertaining bodies that can deal about such
> activity better.  To be sincere, personally, I think is a fraud simply
> because the day that ICANN decides to grant the registry of a new TLD
> to a company different from the one that has being offering such
> TLD...the ones who registered domains names under such TLD simply
> loose the domain and probably the money.  I think this is a subject
> very different from use ccTLDs as generics, or lets say, better:
> marketing ccTLDs as generics.   This was the concern of the .BIZ
> Registry in Montevideo."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00311.html
> 
> "The concern I am pointing out and that was the one I told you in
> Montevideo and in an e-mail I wrote months before Montevideo is
> totally different:  It is about companies marketings TLDs as .TRAVEL,
> .LOVE, .GAME, .VIAJES, .AMOR, .KIDS, etc, etc, etc....and technically
> resolving such TLDs by masquerading with existent TLDs.  And as you
> may realized, none of such TLDs has being created, recognized neither
> asigned by ICANN!!!.  I hope this clarifies better than before." 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00313.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