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

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>
To: <ga-icann@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider


> |> -----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.

WalMart moving in next to a small shop doesn't suggest the shop owner close
up either but that is the result and when you do that on a consistant basis
unfair business practices does come into play.

>
> |> >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.

You don't see that as one-sided? If the alt roots created a .com they would
be wrong, but if ICANN does the same to a dot biz it's ok? Do you reread
your own posts?

>
> |> > > 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.
>

That is exactly where you miss the point. It doesn't NEED TO BENEFIT ICANN!
The policies are to benefit the users. These are not mega corporations in
commercial competition. If it was you would be correct. This is a nonprofit
entity that is supposed to be acting on MY behalf and on the behalf of all
regular users of the Internet, but instead it is doing just as you stated,
acting as if it were in a corporate battle for some market share. You
somehow have gotten it in your head that this is what ICANN is supposed to
do. Therefore you defend corporate policies that belong somewhere like
Verisign, AT&T, and GM. The United Way doesn't make a habit of crushing
smaller Nonprofits nor do they attempt to shut them out. That is what ICANN
should be following as a nonprofit model not following the other corporate
examples.

> 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
>

--
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