RE: Re[2]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-icann@dnso.org On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
|> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 12:13 AM
|> To: ga-icann@dnso.org
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider

Jefsey,

<snip>
|> iCANN is just doing that. Like if McDo was claiming that all the fast
foods
|> should close if they are doing burgers. All the foreign TLD should close
|> if they validate DNs. (TLDs are jut the signature of who has created the
|> Domain Name. Using .biz while it is already in use is actually forgery
|> before anything else).

At no time has ICANN attempted or suggested the alt.roots should close up
shop or attempted to limited their running of root servers for any TLD's.
The alt.roots however have attempted to restrict ICANN in deploying TLD's.
It is obvious that the alt.roots are attempting to interfer with the
business of another entity.

|> >It is not a duplication.  There is no .biz in the ICANN root, and the
|> >ICANN .biz does not have to appear in the privately run alt.root
|> >namespaces.  Both stores can sell burgers, and fries and shakes and
|>
|> This creates misrouting risks. A call to any http://xxx.biz or a mail
|> sent to any zzz@xxx.biz may reach the wrong one.

The possible confusion and misrouting is caused by alt.roots developing
other name spaces.  There is nothing stopping an alt.root operator from
deploying a .com TLD.  This would of course cause even more confusion.  The
confusion would be at the user level.  The alt.roots have to make sure
their customers know how to use their services and the customers need to
make sure their potential clients can find them.  The advantage of having a
single name space eliminates the confusion.  However, we do not have a
single name space.  The real problems arise when operators of name spaces
attempt to profit from the popularity of the legacy name space and impinge
on it.

|> > > ICANN is utilizing unfair business practices by taking advantage of
the
|> > > lead they have in a particular industry to put others out of
business in
|> > > order to create less competition and by claiming the ONE TRUE
AUTHORITATIVE ROOT
|> >
|> >ICANN has not done anything to enforce any policy that would prohibit
|> >alternative roots from being run. They are not putting them out of
|> >business at all.
|>
|> William, I hope you do not mind if I use "William X. Walsh" as
|> a signature from now on?
|>
|> >(For that matter, the alt.root operators themselves seem to
|> >think that root systems are not businesses, so how can they be put out
|> >of business when they claim they are not in it?)
|>
|> Using his own mental disability as an argument.
|> - root system are no business
|> - hence TLDs are no business

Leaving yourself open to an allegation of making personal attacks here, not
productive.

|> The point is that this attitude is making peole believe the
|> iCANN people are dumb stubborn and rather than talking
|> to the iCANN, and may be to help Stuart understand their
|> needs, rights and demands, ... they go and create their
|> own TLD...

Why should ICANN talk to competitors.  The only advantages in any
cooperation between the legacy name space and others goes to the other name
spaces.  In any cooperation agreements there has to be a win/win situation.
I have yet to see any advantages for ICANN, the legacy name space or users
that support any attempts to form an agreement.  I can only see
disadvantages.  So until the arguments are sound in support of any
cooperation I'm afraid it will never get off the ground as a possibility.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-icann@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-icann" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html